Suezann Puffer

Randomised controlled trial of calcium and supplementation with cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) for prevention of fractures in primary care

Abstract Objective To assess whether supplementation with calcium and cholecaliferol (vitamin D3) reduces the risk of fracture in women with one or more risk factors for fracture of the hip. Design Pragmatic open randomised controlled trial. Setting Practice nurse led clinics in primary care. Participants 3314 women aged 70 and over with one or more risk factors for hip fracture: any previous fracture, low body weight (< 58 kg), smoker, family history of hip fracture, or fair or poor self reported health. Intervention Daily oral supplementation using 1000 mg calcium with 800 IU cholecaliferol and information leaflet on dietary calcium intake and prevention of falls, or leaflet only (control group). Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was all clinical fractures and secondary outcome measures were adherence to treatment, falls, and quality of life (measured with the SF-12). Results 69% of the women who completed the follow-up questionnaire at 24 months were still taking supplements (55% with inclusion of randomised participants known to be alive). After a median follow-up of 25 months (range 18 to 42 months), clinical fracture rates were lower than expected in both groups but did not significantly differ for all clinical fractures (odds ratio for fracture in supplemented group 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.43). The odds ratio for hip fracture was 0.75 (0.31 to 1.78). The odds of a woman having a fall at six and 12 months was 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. Quality of life did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion We found no evidence that calcium and vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of clinical fractures in women with one or more risk factors for hip fracture. Registration ISRCTN26118436, controlled trials registry.

Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals

Abstract Objective To examine the prevalence of a risk of bias associated with the design and conduct of cluster randomised controlled trials among a sample of recently published studies. Design Retrospective review of cluster randomised trials published in the BMJ, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine from January 1997 to October 2002. Main outcome measures Prevalence of secure randomisation of clusters, identification of participants before randomisation (to avoid foreknowledge of allocation), differential recruitment between treatment arms, differential application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and differential attrition. Results Of the 36 trials identified, 24 were published in the BMJ,11 in the Lancet, and a single trial in the New England Journal of Medicine. At the cluster level, 15 (42%) trials provided evidence for secure allocation and 25 (69%) used stratified allocation. Few trials showed evidence of imbalance at the cluster level. However, some evidence of susceptibility to risk of bias at the individual level existed in 14 (39%) studies. Conclusions Some recently published cluster randomised trials may not have taken adequate precautions to guard against threats to the internal validity of their design.

Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: a randomised trial of variations in design

Objectives: Low response rates to postal questionnaires can threaten the validity of studies by reducing the effective sample size and introducing bias. The identification of methods with which to optimise response rates could, therefore, improve the quality of studies. In an attempt to identify such methods, we undertook a randomised trial of two simple variations in questionnaire design. Methods: Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, we conducted a randomised trial to test two variations in questionnaire design; the questionnaires were printed on either single-sided or double-sided paper and had either a single- or multiple-booklet layout. Using equal random allocation, 3836 women were randomised to receive one of these questionnaires as part of a study investigating risk factors for osteoporotic fractures. Results: One thousand eight hundred and seventy questionnaires were returned, giving an overall response rate of 48.7%. There were no significant differences in the overall response to each of the four questionnaire designs. When the number of responders who completed at least 50% of each of the three sections was identified, it was found that single-booklet questionnaires had a better response than the multiple-booklet questionnaires and that single-sided questionnaires had a better response than double-sided questionnaires. However, these results were not significant at the 5% level. There were no significant differences in the response to questions on the odd (left-hand side) pages for the single- compared with the double-sided questionnaires. Conclusion: As the most cost-effective use of resources, we would advocate the use of double- rather than single-sided questionnaires, and use of a single- rather than multiple-booklet design.