Cycling position optimisation - a systematic review of the impact of positional changes on biomechanical and physiological factors in cycling.

Bike positional configuration changes strongly affect cycling performance. While consensus has emerged on saddle height optimisation, there is none for the relationship between other bike positional variables and cycling performance. Accordingly, this systematic review examines the effect of all major positional variables on performance in cycling, assessing differences between cycling disciplines and sex where possible. The systematic review, conducted per PRISMA guidelines, searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, and CINAHL, screening 16,578 studies. Of these, 47 were fully analysed. Study quality assessment using the NIH tool revealed none rated "good", 5 "fair" and 33 "poor". The analysis involved 724 participants (90 female, 454 male, 180 sex unstated). Studies focused on trunk angle/upper body position, handlebar height, Q factor, foot position, saddle fore-aft/height, seat tube angle and crank length. Participant cycling disciplines were often unspecified and few papers address women cyclists specifically. Key findings were associated with changing saddle height, trunk angle and saddle fore-aft. For trunk angle, accounting for the biomechanical and physiological effects as well as aerodynamic changes is important. Saddle fore-aft affects the hip angle and trunk angle. There are no clear recommendations for crank length, handlebar height, Q factor or cleat position.

Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials-an ovarian cancer exemplar.

BACKGROUND: There is a trend to increasing use of routinely collected health data to ascertain outcome measures in trials. We report on the completeness and accuracy of national ovarian cancer and death registration in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). METHODS: Of the 202,638 participants, 202,632 were successfully linked and followed through national cancer and death registries of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Women with registrations of any of 19 pre-defined ICD-10 codes suggestive of tubo-ovarian cancer or notification of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer from hospital episode statistics or trial sites were identified. Copies of hospital and primary care notes were retrieved and reviewed by an independent outcomes review committee. National registration of site and cause of death as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer (C56/C57/C48) obtained up to 3 months after trial censorship was compared to that assigned by outcomes review (reference standard). RESULTS: Outcome review was undertaken in 3110 women on whom notification was received between 2001 and 2014. Ovarian cancer was confirmed in 1324 of whom 1125 had a relevant cancer registration. Sensitivity and specificity of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer registration were 85.0% (1125/1324; 95% CI 83.7-86.2%) and 94.0% (1679/1786; 95% CI 93.2-94.8%), respectively. Of 2041 death registrations reviewed, 681 were confirmed to have a tubo-ovarian cancer of whom 605 had relevant death registration. Sensitivity and specificity were 88.8% (605/681; 95% CI 86.4-91.2%) and 96.7% (1482/1533, 95% CI 95.8-97.6%), respectively. When multiple electronic health record sources were considered, sensitivity for cancer site increased to 91.1% (1206/1324, 95% CI 89.4-92.5%) and for cause of death 94.0% (640/681, 95% CI 91.9-95.5%). Of 1232 with cancer registration, 8.7% (107/1232) were wrongly designated as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers by the registry and 4.0% (47/1172) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancers were mis-registered. In 656 with death registrations, 7.8% (51/656) were wrongly assigned as due to ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers while 6.2% (40/645) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancer deaths were mis-registered. CONCLUSION: Follow-up of trial participants for tubo-ovarian cancer using national registry data will result in incomplete ascertainment, particularly of the site due in part to the latency of registration. This can be reduced by using other routinely collected data such as hospital episode statistics. Central adjudication by experts though resource intensive adds value by improving the accuracy of diagnoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000.

Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202,638 women: 50,640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50,639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101,359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202,546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50,624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50,623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101,299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345,570 MMS and 327,775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0-12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0-14 of 15% (95% CI -3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (-7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (-20 to 31) in years 0-7 and 23% (1-46) in years 7-14, and in the USS group, of 2% (-27 to 26) in years 0-7 and 21% (-2 to 42) in years 7-14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (-2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (-27 to 43) in years 0-7 and 28% (-3 to 49) in years 7-14 in favour of MMS. INTERPRETATION: Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7-14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal.