BACKGROUND: Reducing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption is a promising dietary target for childhood obesity prevention. This paper describes the design and methods of a cluster randomized trial of H2GO!, a youth empowerment intervention to prevent childhood obesity through reducing SSB consumption among a low-income, ethnically diverse sample of youth. METHODS: This cluster randomized controlled trial is an academic-community partnership with the Massachusetts Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs (BGC). Ten BGC sites will be randomly assigned to the H2GO! intervention or a wait-list, usual care control. Eligible study participants will be N = 450 parent-child pairs (youth ages 9-12 years and their parents/caregivers) recruited from participating BGCs. The 6-week in-person H2GO! intervention consists of 12 group-based sessions delivered by BGC staff and youth-led activities. An innovative feature of the intervention is the development of youth-produced narratives as a strategy to facilitate youth empowerment and parental engagement. Child outcomes include measured body mass index z scores (zBMI), beverage intake, and youth empowerment. Parent outcomes include beverage intake and availability of SSBs at home. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months. With a 75% retention rate, the study is powered to detect a minimum group difference of 0.1 zBMI units over 12 months. DISCUSSION: Empowering youth may be a promising intervention approach to prevent childhood obesity through reducing SSB consumption. This intervention was designed to be delivered through BGCs and is hypothesized to be efficacious, relevant, and acceptable for the target population of low-income and ethnically diverse youth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04265794 . Registered 11 February 2020.

Background: Yoga is effective for mild to moderate chronic low back pain (cLBP), but its comparative effectiveness with physical therapy (PT) is unknown. Moreover, little is known about yoga's effectiveness in underserved patients with more severe functional disability and pain. Objective: To determine whether yoga is noninferior to PT for cLBP. Design: 12-week, single-blind, 3-group randomized noninferiority trial and subsequent 40-week maintenance phase. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01343927). Setting: Academic safety-net hospital and 7 affiliated community health centers. Participants: 320 predominantly low-income, racially diverse adults with nonspecific cLBP. Intervention: Participants received 12 weekly yoga classes, 15 PT visits, or an educational book and newsletters. The maintenance phase compared yoga drop-in classes versus home practice and PT booster sessions versus home practice. Measurements: Primary outcomes were back-related function, measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain, measured by an 11-point scale, at 12 weeks. Prespecified noninferiority margins were 1.5 (RMDQ) and 1.0 (pain). Secondary outcomes included pain medication use, global improvement, satisfaction with intervention, and health-related quality of life. Results: One-sided 95% lower confidence limits were 0.83 (RMDQ) and 0.97 (pain), demonstrating noninferiority of yoga to PT. However, yoga was not superior to education for either outcome. Yoga and PT were similar for most secondary outcomes. Yoga and PT participants were 21 and 22 percentage points less likely, respectively, than education participants to use pain medication at 12 weeks. Improvements in yoga and PT groups were maintained at 1 year with no differences between maintenance strategies. Frequency of adverse events, mostly mild self-limited joint and back pain, did not differ between the yoga and PT groups. Limitations: Participants were not blinded to treatment assignment. The PT group had disproportionate loss to follow-up. Conclusion: A manualized yoga program for nonspecific cLBP was noninferior to PT for function and pain. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health.

In this review, we focused on common sources of confusion and errors in the analysis and interpretation of basic science studies. The issues addressed are seen repeatedly in the authors' editorial experience, and we hope this article will serve as a guide for those who may submit their basic science studies to journals that publish both clinical and basic science research. We have discussed issues related to sample size and power, study design, data analysis, and presentation of results. We then illustrated these issues using a set of examples from basic science research studies.