Description: Oral bowel-cleansing preparations are used before colonic surgery and endoscopic and radiological assessment of the intestine to minimise faecal contamination. In February 2009, the UK National Patient Safety Agency issued a Rapid Response Report highlighting the potential risk of harm associated with the use of these preparations and instructing local NHS Trusts to implement safeguards to reduce this risk. This guidance has been prepared to help NHS Trusts to respond to these concerns, as the risk of complications is influenced by both individual patient risk factors and the choice of bowel preparation, for which definitive guidance was not previously available. This document provides an outline of the different available oral bowel-cleansing agents and the complications that may arise. This is followed by recommendations for their use in different patient groups and circumstances. The recommendations are based on consensus between the authors, each of whom circulated drafts to members of their specialist society. The evidence for these recommendations has been assessed using the modified GRADE system. The recommendations cover the choice, administration and complications (relative and absolute) of the different oral bowel-cleansing agents, with specific guidance provided for different patient groups.

Description: Introduction The growing prevalence of adults with ‘severe or greater’ hearing loss globally is of great concern, with hearing loss leading to diminished communication, and impacting on an individual’s quality of life (QoL). Cochlear implants (CI) are a recommended device for people with severe or greater, sensorineural hearing loss, who obtain limited benefits from conventional hearing aids (HA), and through improved speech perception, CIs can improve the QoL of recipients. Despite this, utilisation of CIs is low. Methods and analysis This qualitative, multiphase and multimethod dual-site study (Australia and the UK) explores patients’ and healthcare professionals’ behaviours and attitudes to cochlear implantation. Participants include general practitioners, audiologists and older adults with severe or greater hearing loss, who are HA users, CI users and CI candidates. Using purposive time frame sampling, participants will be recruited to take part in focus groups or individual interviews, and will each complete a demographic questionnaire and a qualitative proforma. The study aims to conduct 147 data capture events across a sample of 49 participants, or until data saturation occurs. Schema and thematic analysis with extensive group work will be used to analyse data alongside reporting of demographic and participant characteristics. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for this study was granted by Macquarie University (HREC: 5201700539), and the study will abide by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council ethical guidelines. Study findings will be published through peer-reviewed journal articles, and disseminated through public and academic conference presentations, participant information sheets and a funders’ final report.

Description: Introduction Tinnitus is the perception of sound in the absence of a corresponding external acoustic stimulus. Bimodal neuromodulation is emerging as a promising treatment for this condition. The main objectives of this study are to investigate the relevance of interstimulus timing and the choices of acoustic and tongue stimuli for a proprietary bimodal (auditory and somatosensory) neuromodulation device, as well as to explore whether specific subtypes of patients are differentially responsive to this novel intervention for reducing the symptoms of chronic tinnitus. Methods and analysis This is a two-site, randomised, triple-blind, exploratory study of a proprietary neuromodulation device with a pre–post and 12-month follow-up design. Three different bimodal stimulation parameter sets will be examined. The study will enrol 342 patients, split 80:20 between two sites (Dublin, Ireland and Regensburg, Germany), to complete 12 weeks of treatment with the device. Patients will be allocated to one of three arms using a stepwise stratification according to four binary categories: tinnitus tonality, sound level tolerance (using loudness discomfort level of 〈60 dB SL as an indicator for hyperacusis), hearing thresholds and presence of a noise-induced audiometric profile. The main indicators of relative clinical efficacy for the three different parameter sets are two patient-reported outcomes measures, the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and the Tinnitus Functional Index, after 12 weeks of intervention. Clinical efficacy will be further explored in a series of patient subtypes, split by the stratification variables and by presence of a somatic tinnitus. Evidence for sustained effects on the psychological and functional impact of tinnitus will be followed up for 12 months. Safety data will be collected and reported. A number of feasibility measures to inform future trial design include: reasons for exclusion, completeness of data collection, attrition rates, patient’s adherence to the device usage as per manufacturer’s instructions and evaluation of alternative methods for estimating tinnitus impact and tinnitus loudness. Ethics and dissemination This study protocol is approved by the Tallaght Hospital/St. James’s Hospital Joint Research Ethics Committee in Dublin, Ireland, and by the Ethics Committee of the University Clinic Regensburg, Germany. Findings will be disseminated to relevant research, clinical, health service and patient communities through publications in peer-reviewed and popular science journals and presentations at scientific and clinical conferences. Trial registration number The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02669069 ) Pre-results.

Description: Introduction In the UK, it is estimated that a disabling hearing loss (HL) affects 1 in 6 people. HL has functional, economic and social-emotional consequences for affected individuals. Intervention for HL focuses on improving access to the auditory signal using hearing aids or cochlear implants. However, even if sounds are audible and speech is understood, individuals with HL often report increased effort when listening. Listening effort (LE) may be measured using self-reported measures such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are validated questionnaires completed by patients to measure their perceptions of their own functional status and well-being. When selecting a PROM for use in research or clinical practice, it is necessary to appraise the evidence of a PROM’s acceptability to patients, validity, responsiveness and reliability. Methods and analysis A systematic review of studies evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs available to measure LE in HL will be undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Web of Science will be searched electronically. Reference lists of included studies, key journals and the grey literature will be hand-searched to identify further studies for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently complete title, abstract and full-text screening to determine study eligibility. Data on the characteristics of each study and each PROM will be extracted. Methodological quality of the included studies will be appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, the quality of included PROMs appraised and the credibility of the evidence assessed. A narrative synthesis will summarise extracted data. Ethics and dissemination Ethical permission is not required, as this study uses data from published research. Dissemination will be through publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and the lead author’s doctoral dissertation. Findings may inform the selection of PROMs used to measure LE in HL.

Description: Bryan Frederick Warren came from humble beginnings in Cheshire to be one of the most influential gastrointestinal pathologists of his time. Educated at state schools in Nantwich, Bryan was the first...

Description: Objective To examine the degree of concordance in reporting serious adverse events (SAEs) from antidepressant and antipsychotic drug trials among journal articles and clinical trial summaries, and to categorise types of discrepancies. Design Cross-sectional study of summaries of all antidepressant and antipsychotic trials included in an online trial registry and their first associated stand-alone journal articles. Setting Clinicalstudyresults.org, sponsored by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; clinicaltrials.gov, administered by the US National Institutes of Health. Main outcome measure 3 coders extracted data on the numbers and types of SAEs. Results 244 trial summaries for six antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs were retrieved, 142 (58.2%) listing an associated article. Of 1608 SAEs in drug-treated participants according to trial summaries, 694 (43.2%) did not appear in associated articles. Nearly 60% of SAEs counted in articles and 41% in trial summaries had no description. Most cases of death (62.3%) and suicide (53.3%) were not reported in articles. Half or more of the 142 pairs were discordant in reporting the number (49.3%) or description (67.6%) of SAEs. These discrepancies resulted from journal articles’ (1) omission of complete SAE data, (2) reporting acute phase study results only and (3) more restrictive reporting criteria. Trial summaries with zero SAE were 2.35 (95% CI, 1.58 to 3.49; p〈0.001) times more likely to be published with no discrepancy in their associated journal article. Since clinicalstudyresults.org was removed from the Internet in 2011, only 7.8% of retrieved trial summaries appear with results on clinicaltrials.gov. Conclusions Substantial discrepancies exist in SAE data found in journal articles and registered summaries of antidepressant and antipsychotic drug trials. Two main scientific sources accessible to clinicians and researchers are limited by incomplete, ambiguous and inconsistent reporting. Access to complete and accurate data from clinical trials of drugs currently in use remains a pressing concern.