Explanation for symptoms and biographical repair in a clinic for persistent physical symptoms.

Introduction: Biographical disruption describes the process by which illness impacts not just on a person's body and their participation in activities, but also on their sense of self. Biographical disruption is often followed by a process of biographical repair in which identity is reconstructed and a new normality is restored. People with persistent physical symptoms (sometimes referred to as medically unexplained symptoms) experience biographical disruption. This can be complicated by lack of explanation and the implication that if the problem is not medical, then it might be the person/psychological. We aimed to examine this tension in people attending a novel "Symptoms Clinic" for people with persistent physical symptoms. Methods: This study reports an embedded qualitative study in a UK based randomised controlled trial. Data were collected by audio recordings of consultations and semi-structured interviews with patients. We used theoretically informed thematic analysis with regular coding and discussion meetings of the analysis team. This analysis explores the role of intervention components in facilitating biographical repair. Results: The lack of acceptable explanation for persistent symptoms acted as a block to biographical repair. In the clinic, multi-layered explanations were offered and negotiated that viewed persistent symptoms as understandable entities rather than as indicators of something still hidden. These explanations allowed study participants to make sense of their symptoms and in turn opened new opportunities for self-management. The result was that participants were able to reframe their symptoms in a way that enabled them to see themselves differently. Even if symptoms had not yet improved, there was a sense of being better. This can be understood as a process of biographical repair. Conclusion: Explaining persistent physical symptoms enables biographical repair.

Effectiveness of a symptom-clinic intervention delivered by general practitioners with an extended role for people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms in England: the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple and persistent physical symptoms have impaired quality of life and poor experiences of health care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based symptom-clinic intervention in people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms, hypothesising that this symptoms clinic plus usual care would be superior to usual care only. METHODS: The Multiple Symptoms Study 3 was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in 108 general practices in the UK National Health Service in four regions of England between Dec 6, 2018, and June 30, 2023. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) to the symptom-clinic intervention plus usual care or to usual care only via a computer-generated, pseudo-random list stratified by trial centre. Allocation was done by the trial statistician and concealed with a centralised, web-based randomisation system; masking participants was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The symptom-clinic intervention was a sequence of up to four medical consultations that aimed to elicit a detailed clinical history, fully hear and validate the participant, offer rational explanations for symptoms, and assist the participant to develop ways of managing their symptoms; it was delivered by general practitioners with an extended role. The primary outcome was Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) score 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN57050216). FINDINGS: 354 participants were randomly assigned; 178 (50%) were assigned to receive the community-based symptoms clinic plus usual care and 176 (50%) were assigned to receive usual care only. At the primary-outcome point of 52 weeks, PHQ-15 scores were 14·1 (SD 3·7) in the group receiving usual care and 12·2 (4·5) in the group receiving the intervention. The adjusted between-group difference of -1·82 (95% CI -2·67 to -0·97) was statistically significantly in favour of the intervention group (p<0·0001). There were 39 adverse events in the group receiving usual care and 36 adverse events in the group receiving the intervention. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of participants who had non-serious adverse events (-0·03, 95% CI -0·11 to 0·05) or serious adverse events (0·02, -0·02 to 0·07). No serious adverse event was deemed to be related to the trial intervention. INTERPRETATION: Our symptom-clinic intervention, which focused on explaining persistent symptoms to participants in order to support self-management, led to sustained improvement in multiple and persistent physical symptoms. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a qualitative study of UK clinical trials units and NIHR trial investigators.

BACKGROUND: Harms, also known as adverse events (AEs), are recorded and monitored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure participants' safety. Harms are recorded poorly or inconsistently in RCTs of Behaviour Change Interventions (BCI); however, limited guidance exists on how to record harms in BCI trials. This qualitative study explored experiences and perspectives from multi-disciplinary trial experts on recording harms in BCI trials. METHODS: Data were collected through fifteen in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews and three focus groups with thirty-two participants who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Participants included multi-disciplinary staff from eight CTUs, Chief investigators, and patient and public representatives. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Five themes were identified, namely perception and understanding of harm, proportionate reporting and plausibility, the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, language of BCI harms and complex harms for complex interventions. Participants strongly believed harms should be recorded in BCI trials; however, making decisions on "how and what to record as harms" was difficult. Recording irrelevant harms placed a high burden on trial staff and participants, drained trial resources and was perceived as for little purpose. Participants believed proportionate recording was required that focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention. Multi-disciplinary trial team input was essential for identifying and collecting harms; however, this was difficult in practice due to lack of knowledge on harms from BCIs, lack of input or difference in opinion. The medical language of harms was recognised as a poor fit for BCI trial harms but was familiar and established within internal processes. Future guidance on this topic would be welcomed and could include summarised literature. CONCLUSIONS: Recording harms or adverse events in behaviour change intervention trials is complex and challenging; multi-disciplinary experts in trial design and implementation welcome forthcoming guidance on this topic. Issues include the high burden of recording irrelevant harms and use of definitions originally designed for drug trials. Proportionate recording of harms focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention and multi-disciplinary team input into decision making are essential.

Recording harms in randomized controlled trials of behavior change interventions: a scoping review and map of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials evaluate diverse interventions. This can include medical interventions such as drugs or surgical procedures, or behavior change interventions (BCIs) that aim to change a habit, belief, or attitude to improve health, for example, healthy eating, psychological wellbeing. Harms are often recorded poorly or inconsistently within randomized controlled trials of BCIs. This scoping review aimed to collate and describe literature on categories, definitions, and mechanisms of harms from BCIs; methods of identifying plausible harms; and recommendations for recording harms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Reference list checking and citation searching were performed. Articles were included if they discussed (1) interventions that aimed to modify behavior, (2) categories or mechanisms of harms, and (3) methods or recommendations for recording harms. All research designs were included. One reviewer reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; queries were checked with another reviewer. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer. A thematic map was constructed to summarize the review findings. Harms described from specific BCIs were identified, and examples were selected and summarized. RESULTS: The review included 37 articles. Nineteen of 37 articles contributed to a thematic review. Three articles described categories of harms; categories of harm included physical, psychological, group and social interactions, cultural, equity, opportunity cost, environmental, and economic. Seven articles included mechanisms or underlying factors for harms including feelings of failure leading to shame or stigma, and group interventions enabling knowledge exchange on unhealthy behaviors. Twelve articles provided recommendations for recording harms, including taking a proportionate approach by focusing on the most plausible and important harms, collecting different perspectives on whether harms had occurred (eg, caregivers and family members), and using qualitative research methods to identify harms. One article described a three-step method to identify plausible harms from an intervention, and six articles supported aspects of the method. Eighteen of 37 articles contributed to a review which collated harms arising from specific interventions, for example, a peer support intervention in inflammatory bowel disease caused distressing conversations which might lead to anxiety and confrontation with a possible negative future. CONCLUSION: BCIs can cause harm. This review identified categories and proposed mechanisms of harms, as well as methods and recommendations for identifying and recording harms in BCIs for inclusion in forthcoming recommendations.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Recognition, explanation, action, learning: Teaching and delivery of a consultation model for persistent physical symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the teaching and delivery of an extended consultation model designed for clinicians to use with patients with persistent physical symptoms and functional disorders. The model is underpinned by current scientific knowledge about persistent physical symptoms and the communication problems that arise in dealing with them. METHODS: Process evaluation of training and delivery of the Recognition, Explanation, Action, Learning (REAL) model within the Multiple Symptoms Study 3: a randomised controlled trial of an extended-role GP "Symptoms Clinic". Evaluation used clinician and patient interviews and consultation transcripts. RESULTS: 7 GPs were trained in the intervention and 6 of them went on to deliver the REAL model in Symptoms Clinics either face-to-face or online. The Symptoms Clinic provided a set of 4 extended consultations to approximately 170 patients. Evaluation of training indicated that there was a considerable load in terms of new knowledge and skills. Evaluation of delivery found clinicians could adapt the model to individual patients while maintaining a high level of fidelity to its core components. CONCLUSION: REAL is a teachable consultation model addressing specific clinical communication issues for people with persistent physical symptoms. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: REAL enables clinicians to explain persistent physical symptoms in a beneficial way.

Sex differences in fetal intracranial volumes assessed by in utero MR imaging.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of the study is to test the null hypothesis that there are no statistically significant differences in intracranial volumes between male and female fetuses. Furthermore, we have studied the symmetry of the cerebral hemispheres in the cohort of low-risk fetuses. METHODS: 200 normal fetuses between 18 and 37 gestational weeks (gw) were included in the cohort and all had in utero MR, consisting of routine and 3D-volume imaging. The surfaces of the cerebral ventricles, brain and internal table of the skull were outlined manually and volume measurements were obtained of ventricles (VV), brain parenchyma (BPV), extraaxial CSF spaces (EAV) and the total intracranial volume (TICV). The changes in those values were studied over the gestational range, along with potential gender differences and asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres. RESULTS: BPV and VV increased steadily from 18 to 37 gestational weeks, and as a result TICV also increased steadily over that period. TICV and BPV increased at a statistically significantly greater rate in male relative to female fetuses after 24gw. The greater VV in male fetuses was apparent earlier, but the rate of increase was similar for male and female fetuses. There was no difference between the genders in the left and right hemispherical volumes, and they remained symmetrical over the age range measured. CONCLUSIONS: We have described the growth of the major intracranial compartments in fetuses between 18 and 37gw. We have shown a number of statistically different features between male and female fetuses, but we have not detected any asymmetry in volumes of the fetal cerebral hemispheres.

Study protocol for the Multiple Symptoms Study 3: a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of a clinic for patients with persistent (medically unexplained) physical symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent physical symptoms (which cannot be adequately attributed to physical disease) affect around 1 million people (2% of adults) in the UK. They affect patients' quality of life and account for at least one third of referrals from General Practitioners (GPs) to specialists. These referrals give patients little benefit but have a real cost to health services time and diagnostic resources. The symptoms clinic has been designed to help people make sense of persistent physical symptoms (especially if medical tests have been negative) and to reduce the impact of symptoms on daily life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the symptoms clinic intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone. Patients were identified through GP searches and mail-outs and recruited by the central research team. 354 participants were recruited and individually randomised (1:1). The primary outcome is the self-reported Physical Health Questionnaire-15 at 52 weeks postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures include the EuroQol 5 dimension 5 level and healthcare resource use. Outcome measures will also be collected at 13 and 26 weeks postrandomisation. A process evaluation will be conducted including consultation content analysis and interviews with participants and key stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained via Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/NW/0422). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to trial participants and patient interest groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57050216.

Predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes in fetuses with isolated mild ventriculomegaly.

BACKGROUND: Fetal ventriculomegaly is the the most common intracranial abnormality detected antenatally. When ventriculomegaly is mild and the only, isolated, abnormality detected (isolated mild ventriculomegaly (IMVM)) the prognosis is generally considered to be good. We aim to determine if there are features on in utero MRI (iuMRI) that can identify fetuses with IMVM who have lower risks of abnormal neurodevelopment outcome. METHODS: We studied cases recruited into the MRI to enhance the diagnosis of fetal developmental brain abnormalities in utero (MERIDIAN) study, specifically those with: confirmed IMVM, 3D volume imaging of the fetal brain and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 3 years. We explored the influence of sex of the fetus, laterality of the ventriculomegaly and intracranial compartmental volumes in relation to neurodevelopmental outcome. FINDINGS: Forty-two fetuses met the criteria (33 male and 9 female). There was no obvious correlation between fetal sex and the risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome. Unilateral IMVM was present in 23 fetuses and bilateral IMVM in 19 fetuses. All fetuses with unilateral IMVM had normal neurodevelopmental outcomes, while only 12/19 with bilateral IMVM had normal neurodevelopmental outcomes. There was no obvious correlation between measure of intracranial volumes and risk of abnormal developmental outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The most important finding is the very high chance of a good neurodevelopmental outcome observed in fetuses with unilateral IMVM, which is a potentially important finding for antenatal counselling. There does not appear to be a link between the volume of the ventricular system or brain volume and the risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome.

Adverse event recording failed to reflect potential harms: a review of trial protocols of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how potential harms are assessed in trials of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a review of protocols from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Public Health Research programmes. Protocols were included if the study was a randomized controlled trial and the intervention intended to change lifestyle or behavior to improve health or improve psychological outcomes. RESULTS: 95 of 151 protocols planned to record adverse events (AEs). Definitions of AEs were often not given and varied widely. Serious AEs were mostly defined using standards originally devised for pharmacological trials. Twenty-two protocols listed expected AEs. Few protocols described assessment of causation between AEs and intervention. Examples of useful AE recording practice were identified. CONCLUSION: Monitoring and recording AEs in behavioral intervention trials was variable and frequently based on reporting guidelines for pharmacological trials. This may mean potential harms are being missed. Future trials should consider: 1) Potential harms posed by the intervention 2) How to define serious AEs 3) What are expected AEs. Further research to achieve consensus on AE recording is required, including identification of core adverse outcomes in clinical areas or caused by interventions.

Accuracy of in-utero MRI to detect fetal brain abnormalities and prognosticate developmental outcome: postnatal follow-up of the MERIDIAN cohort.

BACKGROUND: In utero MRI (iuMRI) detects fetal brain abnormalities more accurately than ultrasonography and provides additional clinical information in around half of pregnancies. We aimed to study whether postnatal neuroimaging after age 6 months changes the diagnostic accuracy of iuMRI and its ability to predict developmental outcome. METHODS: Families enrolled in the MERIDIAN study whose child survived to age 3 years were invited to have a case note review and assessment of developmental outcome with the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, or both. A paediatric neuroradiologist, masked to the iuMRI results, reviewed the postnatal neuroimaging if the clinical report differed from iuMRI findings. Diagnostic accuracy was recalculated. A paediatric neurologist and neonatologist categorised participants' development as normal, at risk, or abnormal, and the ability of iuMRI and ultrasonography to predict developmental outcome were assessed. FINDINGS: 210 participants had case note review, of whom 81 (39%) had additional investigations after age 6 months. The diagnostic accuracy of iuMRI remained higher than ultrasonography (proportion of correct cases was 529 [92%] of 574 vs 387 [67%] of 574; absolute difference 25%, 95% CI 21 to 29; p<0·0001). Developmental outcome data were analysed in 156 participants, and 111 (71%) were categorised as normal or at risk. Of these 111 participants, prognosis was normal or favourable for 56 (51%) using ultrasonography and for 76 (69%) using iuMRI (difference in specificity 18%, 95% CI 7 to 29; p=0·0008). No statistically significant difference was seen in infants with abnormal outcome (difference in sensitivity 4%, 95% CI -10 to 19; p=0·73). INTERPRETATION: iuMRI remains the optimal tool to identify fetal brain abnormalities. It is less accurate when used to predict developmental outcome, although better than ultrasonography for identifying children with normal outcome. Further work is needed to determine how the prognostic abilities of iuMRI can be improved. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

MRI in the diagnosis of fetal developmental brain abnormalities: the MERIDIAN diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography has been the mainstay of antenatal screening programmes in the UK for many years. Technical factors and physical limitations may result in suboptimal images that can lead to incorrect diagnoses and inaccurate counselling and prognostic information being given to parents. Previous studies suggest that the addition of in utero magnetic resonance imaging (iuMRI) may improve diagnostic accuracy for fetal brain abnormalities. These studies have limitations, including a lack of an outcome reference diagnosis (ORD), which means that improvements could not be assessed accurately. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic impact, acceptability and cost consequence of iuMRI among fetuses with a suspected fetal brain abnormality. DESIGN: A pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, cohort study with a health economics analysis and a sociological substudy. SETTING: Sixteen UK fetal medicine centres. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women aged ≥ 16 years carrying a fetus (at least 18 weeks' gestation) with a suspected brain abnormality detected on ultrasonography. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent iuMRI and the findings were reported to their referring fetal medicine clinician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pregnancy outcome was followed up and an ORD from postnatal imaging or postmortem autopsy/imaging collected when available. Developmental data from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and questionnaires were collected from the surviving infants aged 2-3 years. Data on the management of the pregnancy before and after the iuMRI were collected to inform the economic evaluation. Two surveys collected data on patient acceptability of iuMRI and qualitative interviews with participants and health professionals were undertaken. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 570 fetuses. The absolute diagnostic accuracies of ultrasonography and iuMRI were 68% and 93%, respectively [a difference of 25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 21% to 29%]. The difference between ultrasonography and iuMRI increased with gestational age. In the 18-23 weeks group, the figures were 70% for ultrasonography and 92% for iuMRI (difference of 23%, 95% CI 18% to 27%); in the ≥ 24 weeks group, the figures were 65% for ultrasonography and 94% for iuMRI (difference of 29%, 95% CI 23% to 36%). Patient acceptability was high, with at least 95% of respondents stating that they would have iuMRI again in a similar situation. Health professional interviews suggested that iuMRI was acceptable to clinicians and that iuMRI was useful as an adjunct to ultrasonography, but not as a replacement. Across a range of scenarios, iuMRI resulted in additional costs compared with ultrasonography alone. The additional cost was consistently < £600 per patient and the cost per management decision appropriately changed was always < £3000. There is potential for reporting bias from the referring clinicians on the diagnostic and prognostic outcomes. Lower than anticipated follow-up rates at 3 years of age were observed. CONCLUSIONS: iuMRI as an adjunct to ultrasonography significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy and confidence for the detection of fetal brain abnormalities. An evaluation of the use of iuMRI for cases of isolated microcephaly and the diagnosis of fetal spine abnormalities is recommended. Longer-term follow-up studies of children diagnosed with fetal brain abnormalities are required to fully assess the functional significance of the diagnoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27626961. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ultrasonography is routine in pregnancy to check that the baby's brain is developing as expected. However, no medical test is perfect and ultrasonography may miss some brain abnormalities, may get some brain abnormalities wrong or may diagnose an abnormality that is not really present. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may help clarify difficult cases during pregnancy. We wanted to find out if MRI was better than ultrasonography alone in making an accurate diagnosis. We recruited pregnant women whose ultrasound scan, performed by an expert, suggested that their baby had a brain abnormality, and referred them for a MRI scan. The results of the two tests were compared with each other and to the final outcome of the pregnancy. Our results showed that using MRI in addition to ultrasonography improved the accuracy of the diagnosis in about one in four pregnancies. It changed the prediction of how the baby would develop in at least one in five cases. In many cases, the pregnancy was managed differently because of the MRI result. The MRI was acceptable to women, with 95% saying that they would have MRI again in a similar situation. Neither MRI nor ultrasonography accurately identified children who went on to have delayed development at the age of 2­3 years, but MRI was better than ultrasonography at ruling out developmental problems at this age. The MRI cost more than ultrasonography alone; therefore, whether or not it is worthwhile depends on the value placed on the decisions that changed as a result of its use.

An integrated in utero MR method for assessing structural brain abnormalities and measuring intracranial volumes in fetuses with congenital heart disease: results of a prospective case-control feasibility study.

PURPOSE: To refine methods that assess structural brain abnormalities and calculate intracranial volumes in fetuses with congenital heart diseases (CHD) using in utero MR (iuMR) imaging. Our secondary objective was to assess the prevalence of brain abnormalities in this high-risk cohort and compare the brain volumes with normative values. METHODS: We performed iuMR on 16 pregnant women carrying a fetus with CHD and gestational age ≥ 28-week gestation and no brain abnormality on ultrasonography. All cases had fetal echocardiography by a pediatric cardiologist. Structural brain abnormalities on iuMR were recorded. Intracranial volumes were made from 3D FIESTA acquisitions following manual segmentation and the use of 3D Slicer software and were compared with normal fetuses. Z scores were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to look for differences between the normal and CHD fetuses. RESULTS: Successful 2D and 3D volume imaging was obtained in all 16 cases within a 30-min scan. Despite normal ultrasonography, 5/16 fetuses (31%) had structural brain abnormalities detected by iuMR (3 with ventriculomegaly, 2 with vermian hypoplasia). Brain volume, extra-axial volume, and total intracranial volume were statistically significantly reduced, while ventricular volumes were increased in the CHD cohort. CONCLUSION: We have shown that it is possible to perform detailed 2D and 3D studies using iuMR that allow thorough investigation of all intracranial compartments in fetuses with CHD in a clinically appropriate scan time. Those fetuses have a high risk of structural brain abnormalities and smaller brain volumes even when brain ultrasonography is normal.

Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study.

OBJECTIVES: In utero magnetic resonance (iuMR) imaging to diagnose foetal brain abnormalities has been established and is supported by meta-analyses of retrospective and prospective studies. In this paper we describe and classify the iuMR errors made in the largest diagnostic accuracy study to date (MERIDIAN). We also correlate the error rates and types with the prior experience of the reporting radiologists in order to inform how to provide a national programme with the best diagnostic accuracy achievable. METHODS: The MERIDIAN cohort of 570 foetus formed the basis of this study and included 40 cases with a confirmed diagnostic error, compared with the Outcome Reference Diagnosis. Analysis included the potential clinical effect of the error and classification of error type through an Expert Neuroradiological Panel re-reporting the study. Assessments were made regarding radiologists experience prior to MERIDIAN. RESULTS: The overall confirmed error rate for iuMR was 7·0% and it was considered that there would have been an adverse effect on prognostic information in 22/40 cases if the iuMR had informed counselling. The experienced central reporter made statistically significant fewer errors than the less experienced non-central reporters (3·8% v 11·0%) and the central reporter made fewer clinically significant errors. Furthermore, the type of cognitive errors differed between central and non-central reporters. CONCLUSIONS: Although iuMR imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of detecting foetal brain abnormalities there remains a substantial error rate, which can have major clinical significance. We have shown that error rates are lower for more experienced reporting radiologists with fewer potential deleterious clinical implications. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of providing a uniform national service. KEY POINTS: • Overall confirmed error rate for iuMR diagnosing foetal brain abnormalities was 7·0%. • IuMR reports had an adverse effect on counselling in 55% of error cases. • Error rates are consistently lower for more experienced radiologists. • Collaboration between radiologists, dual reporting, overseeing scan and formal training can reduce errors.

Use of MRI in the diagnosis of fetal brain abnormalities in utero (MERIDIAN): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In-utero MRI (iuMRI) has shown promise as an adjunct to ultrasound but the comparative diagnostic performance has been poorly defined. We aimed to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy and confidence of the prenatal diagnosis of fetal brain abnormalities is improved with iuMRI and assess the clinical impact and patient acceptability of iuMRI. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, cohort study in the UK, at 16 fetal medicine centres, of pregnant women aged 16 years or older whose fetus had a brain abnormality detected by ultrasound at a gestational age of 18 weeks or more, had no contraindications to iuMRI, and consented to enter the study. Women carrying a fetus suspected of having a brain anomaly on ultrasound had iuMRI done within 14 days of ultrasound. The findings were reviewed by two independent panels and used to estimate diagnostic accuracy and confidence by comparison with outcome diagnoses. Changes in diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management brought about by iuMRI and patient acceptability were assessed. FINDINGS: Participants were recruited between July 29, 2011, and Aug 31, 2014. The cohort was subdivided by gestation into the 18 weeks to less than 24 weeks fetus cohort (n=369) and into the 24 weeks or older fetus cohort (n=201). Diagnostic accuracy was improved by 23% (95% CI 18-27) in the 18 weeks to less than 24 weeks group and 29% (23-36) in the 24 weeks and older group (p<0·0001 for both groups). The overall diagnostic accuracy was 68% for ultrasound and 93% for iuMRI (difference 25%, 95% CI 21-29). Dominant diagnoses were reported with high confidence on ultrasound in 465 (82%) of 570 cases compared with 544 (95%) of 570 cases on iuMRI. IuMRI provided additional diagnostic information in 387 (49%) of 783 cases, changed prognostic information in at least 157 (20%), and led to changes in clinical management in more than one in three cases. IuMRI also had high patient acceptability with at least 95% of women saying they would have an iuMRI study if a future pregnancy were complicated by a fetal brain abnormality. INTERPRETATION: iuMRI improves diagnostic accuracy and confidence for fetal brain anomalies and leads to management changes in a high proportion of cases. This finding, along with the high patient acceptability, leads us to propose that any fetus with a suspected brain abnormality on ultrasound should have iuMRI to better inform counselling and management decisions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the contribution of mr imaging to the diagnosis of foetal brain abnormalities In Utero.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review was undertaken to define the diagnostic performance of in utero MR (iuMR) imaging when attempting to confirm, exclude or provide additional information compared with the information provided by prenatal ultrasound scans (USS) when there is a suspicion of foetal brain abnormality. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched as well as relevant journals and conference proceedings. Reference lists of applicable studies were also explored. Data extraction was conducted by two reviewers independently to identify relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Inclusion criteria were original research that reported the findings of prenatal USS and iuMR imaging and findings in terms of accuracy as judged by an outcome reference diagnosis for foetal brain abnormalities. RESULTS: 34 studies met the inclusion criteria which allowed diagnostic accuracy to be calculated in 959 cases, all of which had an outcome reference diagnosis determined by postnatal imaging, surgery or autopsy. iuMR imaging gave the correct diagnosis in 91 % which was an increase of 16 % above that achieved by USS alone. CONCLUSION: iuMR imaging makes a significant contribution to the diagnosis of foetal brain abnormalities, increasing the diagnostic accuracy achievable by USS alone. KEY POINTS: • Ultrasound is the primary modality for monitoring foetal brain development during pregnancy • iuMRI used together with ultrasound is more accurate for detecting foetal brain abnormalities • iuMR imaging is most helpful for detecting midline brain abnormalities • The moderate heterogeneity of reviewed studies may compromise findings.

Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-aged children Associated with a New Term (PLEASANT): Recruiting Primary Care Research Sites-the PLEASANT experience.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of general practices and their patients into research studies is frequently reported as a challenge. The Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-aged children Associated with a New Term (PLEASANT) trial recruited 142 general practices, across England and Wales and delivered the study intervention to time and target. AIMS: To describe the process of recruitment used within the cluster randomised PLEASANT trial and present results on factors that influenced recruitment. METHODS: Data were collected on the number of and types of contact used to gain expression of interest and subsequent randomisation into the PLEASANT trial. Practice size and previous research experience were also collected. RESULTS: The mean number of contacts required to gain expression of interest were m=3.01 (s.d. 1.6) and total number of contacts from initial invitation to randomisation m=6.8 (s.d. 3.5). Previous randomised controlled trial involvement (hazard ratio (HR)=1.81 (confidence interval (CI) 95%, 1.55-2.11) P<0.001) and number of studies a practice had previously engaged in (odds ratio (OR) 1.91 (CI 95%, (1.52-2.42)) P<0.001), significantly influenced whether a practice would participate in PLEASANT. Practice size was not a significant deciding factor (OR=1.04 (95% CI 0.99-1.08) P=0.137). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to time and target can be achieved in general practice. The amount of resource required for site recruitment should not, however, be underestimated and multiple strategies for contacting practices should be considered. General practitioners with more research experience are more likely to participate in studies.