<?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss/styledrssBMC.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:extra="http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/schemas/extra/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/">
	<channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/rss">
		<extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
			<html:div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
				<html:span style="font-weight:bold">This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central</html:span>
				<html:br/>
				<html:span style="font-size: 12px;">It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit <html:br/><html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/</html:a><html:br/>
				</html:span>
			</html:div>
		</extra:info>
		<title>Trials - Latest articles</title>
		<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com</link>
		<description>The latest articles from Trials (ISSN 1745-6215) published by 
				
				BioMed Central
		</description>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/52"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/51"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/50"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/49"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/48"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/47"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/46"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/45"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/44"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/43"/>			    
            
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>  
    
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/52">
            
            <title>A randomized comparative study of patients undergoing myocardial revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass surgery: The MASS III Trial</title>
			<description>The MASS III Trial is a large project from a single institution, The Heart Institute of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil (InCor), enrolling patients with coronary artery disease and preserved ventricular function. The aim of the MASS III Trial is to compare medical effectiveness, cerebral injury, quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness of coronary surgery with and without of cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for both strategies. The predefined primary end point was the incidence of cardiovascular mortality, cerebrovascular accident, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and refractory angina requiring revascularization.  The secondary end points in this trial include noncardiac mortality, presence and severity of angina, quality of life based on the SF-36 Questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness at discharge and at 5-year follow-up.  In this scenario, we will analyze the cost of the initial procedure, hospital length of stay, resource utilization, repeat hospitalization, and repeat revascularization events during the follow-up.  Exercise capacity will be assessed at 6-months, 12-months, and the end of follow-up.  A neurocognitive evaluation will be assessed in a subset of subjects using the Brain Resource Center computerized neurocognitive battery. Furthermore, magnetic resonance imaging will be made to detect any cerebral injury before and after procedures in patients who undergo coronary artery surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. 
Clinical Trial registration information
ISRCTN59539154 Off-pump vs. on-pump surgery in patients with Stable CAD MASS III</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/52</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Whady Hueb, Neuza HM Lopes, Bernard J Gersh, Claudio C Castro, Felipe S Paulitsch, Sergio A Oliveira, Luis A Dallan, Alexandre C Hueb, Noedir A Stolf and Jose AF Ramires</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:52</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-08-28</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-52</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>52</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-08-28</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/51">
            
            <title>A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes</title>
			<description>Background:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are perceived as the gold-standard method for evaluating healthcare interventions, and increasingly include quality of life (QoL) measures. The observed results are susceptible to bias if a substantial proportion of outcome data are missing. The review aimed to determine whether imputation was used to deal with missing QoL outcomes.
Methods:
A random selection of 285 RCTs published during 2005/6 in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were identified.
Results:
QoL outcomes were reported in 61 (21%) trials. Six (10%) reported having no missing data, 20 (33%) reported &#8804; 10% missing, eleven (18%) 11%&#8211;20% missing, and eleven (18%) reported >20% missing. Missingness was unclear in 13 (21%). Missing data were imputed in 19 (31%) of the 61 trials. Imputation was part of the primary analysis in 13 trials, but a sensitivity analysis in six. Last value carried forward was used in 12 trials and multiple imputation in two. Following imputation, the most common analysis method was analysis of covariance (10 trials).
Conclusion:
The majority of studies did not impute missing data and carried out a complete-case analysis. For those studies that did impute missing data, researchers tended to prefer simpler methods of imputation, despite more sophisticated methods being available.</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/51</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Shona Fielding, Graeme Maclennan, Jonathan A Cook and Craig R Ramsay</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:51</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-08-11</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-51</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>51</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-08-11</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/50">
            
            <title>A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting &#8211; rationale, design and baseline characteristics</title>
			<description>Background:
Point of care testing (PoCT) may be a useful adjunct in the management of chronic conditions in general practice (GP). The provision of pathology test results at the time of the consultation could lead to enhanced clinical management, better health outcomes, greater convenience and satisfaction for patients and general practitioners (GPs), and savings in costs and time. It could also result in inappropriate testing, increased consultations and poor health outcomes resulting from inaccurate results. Currently there are very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in GP that have investigated these aspects of PoCT.Design/MethodsThe Point of Care Testing in General Practice Trial (PoCT Trial) was an Australian Government funded multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction of PoCT in a GP setting.The PoCT Trial covered an 18 month period with the intervention consisting of the use of PoCT for seven tests used in the management of patients with diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and patients on anticoagulant therapy. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients within target range, a measure of therapeutic control. In addition, the PoCT Trial investigated the safety of PoCT, impact of PoCT on patient compliance to medication, stakeholder satisfaction, cost effectiveness of PoCT versus laboratory testing, and influence of geographic location.DiscussionThe paper provides an overview of the Trial Design, the rationale for the research methodology chosen and how the Trial was implemented in a GP environment. The evaluation protocol and data collection processes took into account the large number of patients, the broad range of practice types distributed over a large geographic area, and the inclusion of pathology test results from multiple pathology laboratories.The evaluation protocol developed reflects the complexity of the Trial setting, the Trial Design and the approach taken within the funding provided. The PoCT Trial is regarded as a pragmatic RCT, evaluating the effectiveness of implementing PoCT in GP and every effort was made to ensure that, in these circumstances, internal and external validity was maintained.Trial Registration12612605000272695</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/50</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Caroline Laurence, Angela Gialamas, Lisa Yelland, Tanya Bubner, Philip Ryan, Kristyn Willson, Briony Glastonbury, Janice Gill, Mark Shephard, Justin Beilby and members of the PoCT Trial Management Committee</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:50</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-08-06</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-50</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>50</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-08-06</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/49">
            
            <title>Non-invasive cardiac assessment in high risk patients (The GROUND study): rationale, objectives and design of a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial</title>
			<description>Background:
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common disease associated with a considerably increased risk of future cardiovascular events and most of these patients will die from coronary artery disease (CAD). Screening for silent CAD has become an option with recent non-invasive developments in CT (computed tomography)-angiography and MR (magnetic resonance) stress testing. Screening in combination with more aggressive treatment may improve prognosis. Therefore we propose to study whether a cardiac imaging algorithm, using non-invasive imaging techniques followed by treatment will reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in PAD patients free from cardiac symptoms.DesignThe GROUND study is designed as a prospective, multi-center, randomized clinical trial. Patients with peripheral arterial disease, but without symptomatic cardiac disease will be asked to participate. All patients receive a proper risk factor management before randomization. Half of the recruited patients will enter the 'control group' and only undergo CT calcium scoring. The other half of the recruited patients (index group) will undergo the non invasive cardiac imaging algorithm followed by evidence-based treatment. First, patients are submitted to CT calcium scoring and CT angiography. Patients with a left main (or equivalent) coronary artery stenosis of > 50% on CT will be referred to a cardiologist without further imaging. All other patients in this group will undergo dobutamine stress magnetic resonance (DSMR) testing. Patients with a DSMR positive for ischemia will also be referred to a cardiologist. These patients are candidates for conventional coronary angiography and cardiac interventions (coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous cardiac interventions (PCI)), if indicated. All participants of the trial will enter a 5 year follow up period for the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Sequential interim analysis will take place. Based on sample size calculations about 1200 patients are needed to detect a 24% reduction in primary outcome.ImplicationsThe GROUND study will provide insight into the question whether non-invasive cardiac imaging reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral arterial disease, but without symptoms of coronary artery disease.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00189111</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/49</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Alexander M de Vos, Annemarieke Rutten, Hester J van de Zaag-Loonen, Michiel L Bots, Riksta Dikkers, Robert A Buiskool, Willem P Mali, Daniel D Lubbers, Arend Mosterd, Mathias Prokop, Benno J Rensing, Maarten J Cramer, H Wouter van Es, Frans L Moll, Eric D van de Pavoordt, Pieter A Doevendans, Birgitta K Velthuis, Albert J Mackaay, Felix Zijlstra and Matthijs Oudkerk</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:49</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-08-01</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-49</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>49</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-08-01</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/48">
            
            <title>Bright light in elderly subjects with nonseasonal major depressive disorder: a double blind randomised clinical trial using early morning bright blue light comparing dim red light treatment</title>
			<description>Background:
Depression frequently occurs in the elderly. Its cause is largely unknown, but several studies point to disturbances of biological rhythmicity. In both normal aging, and depression, the functioning of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) is impaired, as evidenced by an increased prevalence of day-night rhythm perturbations, such as sleeping disorders. Moreover, the inhibitory SCN neurons on the hypothalamus-pituitary adrenocortical axis (HPA-axis) have decreased activity and HPA-activity is enhanced, when compared to non-depressed elderly. Using bright light therapy (BLT) the SCN can be stimulated. In addition, the beneficial effects of BLT on seasonal depression are well accepted. BLT is a potentially safe, nonexpensive and well accepted treatment option. But the current literature on BLT for depression is inconclusive.Methods/DesignThis study aims to show whether BLT can reduce non-seasonal major depression in elderly patients. Randomized double blind placebo controlled trial in 126 subjects of 60 years and older with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD, DSM-IV/SCID-I). Subjects are recruited through referrals of psychiatric outpatient clinics and from case finding from databases of general practitioners and old-people homes in the Amsterdam region. After inclusion subjects are randomly allocated to the active (bright blue light) vs. placebo (dim red light) condition using two Philips Bright Light Energy boxes type HF 3304 per subject, from which the light bulbs have been covered with bright blue- or dim red light- permitting filters. Patients will be stratified by use of antidepressants. Prior to treatment a one-week period without light treatment will be used. At three time points several endocrinological, psychophysiological, psychometrically, neuropsychological measures are performed: just before the start of light therapy, after completion of three weeks therapy period, and three weeks thereafter.DiscussionIf BLT reduces nonseasonal depression in elderly patients, then additional lightning may easily be implemented in the homes of patients to serve as add-on treatment to antidepressants or as a stand-alone treatment in elderly depressed patients. In addition, if our data support the role of a dysfunctional biological clock in depressed elderly subjects, such a finding may guide further development of novel chronobiological oriented treatment strategies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00332670</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/48</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Ritsaert Lieverse, Marjan MA Nielen, Dick J Veltman, Bernard MJ Uitdehaag, Eus JW van Someren, Jan H Smit and Witte JG Hoogendijk</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:48</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-31</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-48</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>48</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-31</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/47">
            
            <title>Meta-analysis of trials comparing anastrozole and tamoxifen for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer</title>
			<description>ObjectiveIt was aimed to review the literature and make a meta-analysis of the trials on both upfront, switching, and sequencing anastrozole in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer.
Methods:
The PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed for randomized-controlled trials comparing anastrozole with tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer.
Results:
The combined hazard rate of 4 trials for event-free survival (EFS) was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.70&#8211;0.85) (P &lt; 0.0001) for patients treated with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen. In the second analysis in which only ITA, ABCSG 8, and ARNO 95 trials were included and ATAC (upfront trial) was excluded, combined hazard rate for EFS was 0.64 (95%CI: 0.52&#8211;0.79) (P &lt; 0.0001). In the third analysis including hazard rate for recurrence-free survival (excluding non-disease related deaths) of estrogen receptor-positive patients for ATAC trial and hazard rate for EFS of all patients for the rest of the trials, combined hazard rate was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.65&#8211;0.81) (P &lt; 0.0001).
Conclusion:
Anastrozole appears to have superior efficacy than tamoxifen in the adjuvant hormonal treatment of early breast cancer. Until further clinical evidence comes up, aromatase inhibitors should be the initial hormonal therapy in postmenopausal early breast cancer patients and switching should only be considered for patients who are currently receiving tamoxifen.</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/47</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Adnan Aydiner and Faruk Tas</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:47</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-29</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-47</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>47</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-29</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/46">
            
            <title>Approaches to interim analysis of cancer randomised clinical trials with time to event endpoints: a survey from the Italian National Monitoring Centre for Clinical Trials.</title>
			<description>Background:
Although interim analysis approaches in clinical trials are widely known, information on current practice of planned monitoring is still scarce. Reports of studies rarely include details on the strategies for both data monitoring and interim analysis. The aim of this project is to investigate the forms of monitoring used in cancer clinical trials and in particular to gather information on the role of interim analyses in the data monitoring process of a clinical trial. This study focused on the prevalence of different types of interim analyses and data monitoring in cancer clinical trials.
Methods:
Source of investigation were the protocols of cancer clinical trials included in the Italian registry of clinical trials from 2000 to 2005. Evaluation was restricted to protocols of randomised studies with a time to event endpoint, such as overall survival (OS) or progression free survival (PFS).  A template data extraction form was developed and tested in a pilot phase. Selection of relevant protocols and data extraction were performed independently by two evaluators, with differences in the data assessment resolved by consensus with a third reviewer, referring back to the original protocol. Information was obtained on a) general characteristics of the protocol b) disease localization and patient setting; c) study design d) interim analyses; e) DSMC
Results:
The analysis of the collected protocols reveals that 70.7% of the protocols incorporate statistical interim analysis plans, but only 56% have also a DSMC and be considered adequately planned. The most concerning cases are related to lack of any form of monitoring (20.0% of the protocols), and the planning of interim analysis, without DSMC (14.7%)
Conclusions:
The results indicate that there is still insufficient attention paid to the implementation of interim analysis.</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/46</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Irene Floriani, Nicole Rotmensz, Elena Albertazzi, Valter Torri, Marisa De Rosa, Carlo Tomino and Filippo de Braud</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:46</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-25</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-46</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>46</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-25</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/45">
            
            <title>Informed consent for clinical trials in acute coronary syndromes and stroke following the European Clinical Trials Directive: investigators' experiences and attitudes</title>
			<description>Background:
During clinical trials in emergency medicine, providing appropriate oral and written information to a patient is usually a challenge. There is little published information regarding patients' opinions and competence to provide informed consent, nor on physicians' attitudes towards the process. We have investigated the problem of obtaining consent from patients in emergency-setting clinical trials (such as acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stroke) from a physicians' perspective.
Methods:
A standardised anonymous 14-item questionnaire was distributed to Polish cardiac and stroke centres.
Results:
Two hundred and fourteen informative investigator responses were received. Of these investigators, 73.8% had experience with ACS and 25.2% had experience with acute stroke trials (and 1% with both fields). The complete model of informed consent (embracing all aspects required by Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and law) was used in 53.3% of cases in emergency settings, whereas the legal option of proxy consent was not used at all. While less than 15% of respondents considered written information to have been fully read by patients, 80.4% thought that the amount of information being given to emergency patients is too lengthy. Although there is no legal obligation, more than half of the investigators sought parallel consent (assent) from patients' relatives. Most investigators confirmed that they would adopt the model proposed by the GCP guidelines: abbreviated verbal and written consent in emergency conditions with obligatory "all-embracing" deferred consent to continue the trial once the patient is able to provide it. However, this model would not follow current Polish and European legislation.
Conclusion:
An update of national and European regulations is required to enable implementation of the emergency trial consent model referred to in GCP guidelines.</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/45</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Piotr Iwanowski, Andrzej Budaj, Anna Cz&#322;onkowska, Wojciech W&#261;sek, Beata Koz&#322;owska-Boszko, Urszula Ol&#281;dzka and Wojciech Mase&#322;bas</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:45</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-21</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-45</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>45</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-21</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/44">
            
            <title>Rationale, design and methodology for a Prospective Randomized Study of graft patency in Off-pump and On-pump MultI-Vessel coronary artery bypasS Surgery (PROMISS) using multidetector computed tomography</title>
			<description>Background:
Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting has been accused of possibly compromising graft patency. Sixteen slice computed tomography has shown good diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of coronary bypass graft patency when compared with conventional coronary artery angiography and is less invasive. The study hypothesis is that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed without cardiopulmonary bypass (Off-Pump) has equivalent early graft patency as if performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (On-Pump) and may have reduced complication rate.Methods/DesignThe Prospective Randomized Comparison of Off-Pump and On-Pump MultI-vessel Coronary Artery BypasS Surgery (PROMISS) is a controlled, single blinded, single centre clinical trial, comparing early graft patency using 16-slice computed tomography in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease operated either without or with extracorporeal circulation. Inclusion criteria are multivessel disease with an indication for first time, isolated, non emergent coronary artery bypass grafting with a minimum of three distal anastomoses. Secondary end points are peri-operative mortality, combined morbidity, length of stay, neuro-cognitive testing at 6 weeks and adverse events, stress test and quality of life at 6 months and one year. The sample size of one hundred and fifty patients was calculated in order to enable the detection of a 5% difference in graft patency, with 80% power, considering a minimum of 3 distal anastomoses per patient. Enrolment started in April 2005 and ended July 2007 with study closure in July 2008.
Conclusion:
The PROMISS trial aims to shed new light on the effect of Off-Pump as compared to On-Pump coronary artery bypass surgery on graft patency, assessed by multidetector computed tomography, in unselected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN58800729</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/44</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Miguel Sousa Uva, Fernando Matias, Sara Cavaco and Manuel Pedro Magalh&#227;es</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:44</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-17</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-44</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>44</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-17</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/43">
            
            <title>The TEAM trial: Safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the prevention of aneurysmal hemorrhages: A randomized comparison with indefinite deferral of treatment in 2002 patients followed for 10 years</title>
			<description>The management of patients with unruptured aneurysms remains controversial. Patients with unruptured aneurysms may suffer intracranial haemorrhage, but the incidence of this event is still debated; endovascular treatment may prevent rupture, but involves immediate risks. Hence, the balance of risks and benefits of endovascular treatment is uncertain. Here, we report the design of the TEAM trial, the first international, randomized, controlled trial comparing conservative management with endovascular treatment. Primary endpoint is mortality and morbidity (modified Rankin Score &#8805; 3) from intracranial haemorrhage or treatment. Secondary endpoints include incidence of hemorrhagic events, morbidity related to endovascular coiling, morphological results, overall clinical outcome and quality of life. Statistical tests compare between probabilities at 5- and 10-years of 1/mortality from haemorrhage related to the lesion, excluding per-operative complications; 2/mortality from haemorrhage or from complications of treatment; 3/combined disease or treatment related mortality and morbidity in the absence of other causes of death or disability. The study will be conducted in 60 international centres and will enrol 2,002 patients equally divided between the two groups, a size sufficient to achieve 80% power at a 0.0167 significance to detect differences in 1) disease or treatment-related poor outcomes from 7&#8211;9% to 3&#8211;5%; 2) overall mortality from 16 to 11%. Duration of the study is 14 years, the first three years being for patient recruitment plus a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. The TEAM trial thus offers a means to reconcile the introduction of a new approach with the necessity to acknowledge uncertainties.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN62758344 http://www.controlled-trials.com</description>
			<link>http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/9/1/43</link>
			
			 	<dc:creator>Jean Raymond, Andrew J Molyneux, Allan J Fox, S Claiborne Johnston, Jean-Paul Collet, Isabelle Rouleau and the TEAM collaborative group</dc:creator>
			
			<dc:source>Trials 2008, 9:43</dc:source>
			<dc:date>2008-07-16</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-43</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>Trials</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1745-6215</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>43</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-16</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
		
    <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
	</cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
