Marion K Campbell

Bio: Marion K Campbell is an academic researcher from University of Aberdeen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Clinical trial. The author has an hindex of 65, co-authored 252 publications receiving 19109 citations. Previous affiliations of Marion K Campbell include Glasgow Caledonian University & Ipsen.

CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials

Abstract: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. It was initially published in 1996 and focused on the reporting of parallel group randomised controlled trials. The statement was revised in 2001, with a further update in 2010. A separate CONSORT statement for the reporting of abstracts was published in 2008. In earlier papers we considered the implications of the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement for the reporting of cluster randomised trial. In this paper we provide updated and extended guidance, based on the 2010 version of the CONSORT statement and the 2008 CONSORT statement for the reporting of abstracts.

Systematic review of the long-term effects and economic consequences of treatments for obesity and implications for health improvement

Abstract: Objectives To undertake a systematic review of the long-term effects of obesity treatments on body weight, risk factors for disease, and disease. Methods The study encompassed three systematic reviews that examined different aspects of obesity treatments. (1) A systematic review of obesity treatments in adults where the methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were applied and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 1 year were evaluated. (2) A systematic epidemiological review, where studies were sought on long-term effects of weight loss on morbidity and/or mortality, and examined through epidemiological modelling. (3) A systematic economic review that sought reports with both costs and outcomes of treatment, including recent reports that assessed the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and surgical interventions. A Markov model was also adopted to examine the cost-effectiveness of a low-fat diet and exercise intervention in adults with obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. Results The addition of the drugs orlistat or sibutramine was associated with weight loss and generally improved risk factors, apart from diastolic blood pressure for sibutramine. Metformin was associated with decreased mortality after 10 years in obese people with type 2 diabetes. Low-fat diets were associated with continuing weight loss for 3 years and improvements in risk factors, as well as prevention of type 2 diabetes and improved control of hypertension. Insufficient evidence was available to demonstrate the benefits of low calorie or very low calorie diets. The addition of an exercise or behaviour programme to diet was associated with improved weight loss and risk factors for at least 1 year. Studies combining low-fat diets, exercise and behaviour therapy suggested improved hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Family therapy was associated with improved weight loss for 2 years compared to individual therapy. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that individual therapy was more beneficial than group therapy. Weight lost more quickly (within 1 year), from the epidemiology review, may be more beneficial with respect to the risk of mortality. The effects of intentional weight loss need further investigation. Weight loss from surgical and non-surgical interventions for people suffering from obesity was associated with decreased risk of development of diabetes, and a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol and blood pressure, in the long term. Targeting high-risk individuals with drugs or surgery was likely to result in a cost per additional life-year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of no more than 13,000 British pounds. There was also suggestive evidence of cost saving from treatment of people with type 2 diabetes with metformin. Targeting surgery on people with severe obesity and impaired glucose tolerance was likely to be more cost-effective at 2329 British pounds per additional life-year. Economic modelling over 6 years for diet and exercise for people with impaired glucose tolerance was associated with a high initial cost per additional QALY, but by the sixth year the cost per QALY was 13,389 British pounds. Results did not include cost savings from diseases other than diabetes, and therefore may be conservative. Conclusions The drugs orlistat and sibutramine appear beneficial for the treatment of adults with obesity, and metformin for obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Exercise and/or behaviour therapy appear to improve weight loss when added to diet. Low-fat diets with exercise, or with exercise and behaviour therapy are associated with the prevention of type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Long-term weight loss in epidemiological studies was associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, and may be beneficial for cardiovascular disease. Low-fat diets and exercise interventions in individuals at risk of obesity-related illness are of comparable cost to drug treatments. Long-term pragmatic RCTs of obesity treatments in populations with obesity-related illness or at high risk of developing such illness are needed (to include an evaluation of risk factors, morbidity, quality of life and economic evaluations). Drug trials that include dietary advice, plus exercise and/or behaviour therapy are also needed. Research exploring effective types of exercise, diet or behaviour and also interventions to prevent obesity in adults is required.

What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies.

Abstract: A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.

Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies

Abstract: The methods of evaluating change and improvement strategies are not well described. The design and conduct of a range of experimental and non-experimental quantitative designs are considered. Such study designs should usually be used in a context where they build on appropriate theoretical, qualitative and modelling work, particularly in the development of appropriate interventions. A range of experimental designs are discussed including single and multiple arm randomised controlled trials and the use of more complex factorial and block designs. The impact of randomisation at both group and individual levels and three non-experimental designs (uncontrolled before and after, controlled before and after, and time series analysis) are also considered. The design chosen will reflect both the needs (and resources) in any particular circumstances and also the purpose of the evaluation. The general principle underlying the choice of evaluative design is, however, simple-those conducting such evaluations should use the most robust design possible to minimise bias and maximise generalisability.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Abstract: Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Abstract: Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.