Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by definitive treatment consisting of either radical radiotherapy or radical cystectomy is the recommended treatment for patients with organ-confined muscle-invasive bladder cancer (OC-MIBC). A randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness of radical radiotherapy and radical cystectomy but failed to recruit. Radical radiotherapy is non-invasive and organ-preserving, and observational studies have suggested this treatment may be associated with similar outcomes compared with radical cystectomy. However, in these observational studies, the risk of confounding was high, and they did not consider the receipt of NAC. The surgery or radiotherapy (SORT) for the early-stage cancer study will assess the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of either radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy, both after NAC for OC-MIBC. We will use a target trial emulation approach to reduce the risk of bias when assessing comparative effectiveness from observational data.

The SORT study will use UK’s National Cancer Registry to identify individuals diagnosed with urothelial OC-MIBC (T2-4aN0M0) between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2021 who received either radical radiotherapy or radical cystectomy after NAC. The data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), National Radiotherapy Data Set (RTDS) and Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) data sets to gather information on clinical, tumour and socio-demographic characteristics and receipt of treatment. Using the target trial emulation framework, we will define the eligibility criteria and radical radiotherapy and radical cystectomy receipt. To reduce the risk of confounding, we will use advanced statistical approaches to allow for differences in measured baseline characteristics between the comparison groups.

The primary outcome is 3-year all-cause mortality after radical treatment receipt. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause and bladder-cancer-associated mortality at 3 and 5 years, time to death, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness reported according to net health benefits.

The study was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Reference number 29717 - 1). Results will be communicated in open-access journals and conferences to clinicians, researchers, patients and policymakers.

The primary objective of this clinical trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation and emotional stabilisation (PES), together with eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among adults with intellectual disabilities compared with TAU. Secondary objectives include: (1) determining whether PES/EMDR plus TAU is superior to TAU in improving mental health problems and quality of life (QoL) among adults with intellectual disabilities who had a diagnosis of PTSD and (2) completing a process evaluation to examine intervention implementation and acceptability.

This is a two-arm parallel single-blind randomised controlled trial comparing PES-EMDR+TAU to TAU including an internal pilot phase. Outcome data will be captured prior to randomisation, and at 4 (after PES), 8 (after EMDR) and 14 months postrandomisation by masked assessors. 144 adults with intellectual disabilities with a diagnosis of PTSD will be allocated (1:1) randomly using minimisation from National Health Service (NHS) community and inpatients services for adults with intellectual disabilities in England. Participants are eligible to take part in this trial if: (1) they are aged 18 or older, but younger than 66, (2) have a Full Scale IQ

The primary outcome will be assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline characteristics will be compared between arms to determine whether any potentially influential imbalance occurred. The primary outcome will be analysed by analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline values of the outcome and any variables used in the randomisation process. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using linear or logistic regression models as appropriate reflecting the distribution of the outcome variable. The treatment effect will be estimated as an adjusted difference between sample means, presented with 95% CIs and p values. A complier average causal effect analysis will be considered should the data availability be sufficient to estimate the impact of non-compliance. A series of subgroup analyses on the primary outcomes will be considered considering differences in the Impact of Event Scale–Intellectual Disabilities scores at 14 months for (1) differing levels of general intellectual functioning and (2) PTSD versus complex PTSD.

This clinical trial was designed to allow for conclusions about whether PES/EMDR+TAU is efficacious in reducing symptoms of PTSD, relative to TAU, for adults with intellectual disabilities. A favourable ethical opinion has been received from an NHS ethics committee in the UK. The findings from this trial will be published within peer-reviewed journals and shared at national and international conferences. We will also aim to record and distribute podcasts detailing our findings together with our partners.

ISRCTN35167485.

Competency assessment tools are well-recognised as a method to achieve a standardised level of practice for a group of healthcare professionals with similar characteristics. The aim of this study is to develop and pilot a new competency assessment tool to support therapists caring for patients with blunt chest trauma from prehospital care through to long-term follow-up following hospital discharge.

A mixed-methods study will be undertaken, with three distinct phases: (1) an integrative narrative review to examine the literature regarding therapist competencies; (2) focus groups with patients, therapists and key stakeholders to explore opinions regarding important aspects of care (phases I and II will inform the content of the tool), followed by final tool development by an international expert panel; and (3) a multicentre pilot study using questionnaires and elicitation interviews, in which final tool acceptability to therapists will be tested. The total sample size will be between 40 and 50 participants for the focus groups. For the final tool development work, a panel of 10 international experts will be identified, with a subgroup of 3–5 experts who will be recruited to confirm content validity. We will pilot the tool at five health boards in Wales, aiming for 10 therapists from each. Elicitation interviews will be undertaken with a smaller sample size of between 15 and 20 therapists. A mixed qualitative and quantitative data analysis approach will be used.

Proportionate ethics approval has been granted (South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee, reference number: 24/YH/0231). We will publish the work in an open-access peer-reviewed journal to ensure equitable access and present at relevant conferences. Webinars will be used to achieve a wide audience. The results will be shared with the research participants via an infographic which will be designed and developed with the public research partners.

Integrative review is registered at the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CEXNR

Randomised controlled trials have aimed to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with curative intent versus surgical resection for individuals diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but have failed to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. Non-randomised studies for early-stage NSCLC have reported mixed outcomes following curative SABR versus surgical resection, but did not fully address confounding by indication. The Surgery Or RadioTherapy for early-stage cancer study (SORT) will assess the comparative effectiveness of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for NSCLC with a target trial emulation approach, as this can reduce biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions.

The SORT study will use the National Cancer Registry for individuals diagnosed with early-stage NSCLC in England during 2015–2020 (inclusive) who received SABR with curative intent or surgical resection. These data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, National Radiotherapy Data Set and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy dataset to obtain information on clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and the treatment received. This target trial emulation will define study population eligibility criteria and regimens for SABR with curative intent and surgical resection. We will reduce the risk of residual confounding with instrumental variable analyses that will exploit geographical variation across the National Health Service in England in the use of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for early-stage NSCLC. The primary outcome will be 3-year all-cause mortality after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes will include 3-month, 6-month, 12-month and 24-month all-cause and lung-cancer mortality, time to death, numbers of hospitalisations, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.

Ethical approval was obtained from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (reference number 29 717–1). Results will be disseminated to clinicians, patients, policy-makers and researchers.