Search

Routinely collected health data (RCD) including electronic health records, disease registries, health administrative data and wearables data are not specifically collected for research purposes. Analysis of these data poses unique methodological challenges that must be addressed when conducting research, particularly as availability and use increase. This scoping review aimed to identify methodological challenges in research using RCD from existing literature (registered protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EBM4D). We searched 6 electronic databases, including medical, health economics, nursing and psychology research databases, between Jan 2015 and Jan 2023, combining multiple “RCD” and “research” search terms (e.g., epidemiologic, informatics, pharmaceutical research). After screening abstracts and full-texts, we doubly extracted methodological themes, categorizing them into different study stages. We screened more than 23,000 records and included 430 papers. Bias and confounding were the most common methodological issues identified, discussed in relation to both study design and data analysis. Data quality, including data accuracy, validation, completeness, timeliness and cleaning, also posed substantial challenges, particularly during data processing stage. Record linkage and conducting analyses using distributed health networks also pose unique methodological challenges. Heterogeneity, incorporating social determinants of health and statistical models that address methodological challenges are also described in the literature. External validity and reporting are important considerations for RCD research. Our review identified several methodological challenges facing researchers using RCD. These issues should be addressed to ensure methodologically sound research. These findings will inform the development of a standardized protocol template and accompanying educational platform aimed at enhancing methodological quality and transparency when conducting research using RCD.

Abstract Background It has not been clearly established if skin cancer or melanoma are manifestations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier status. Estimating the risk of skin cancer is an important step towards developing screening recommendations. Methods We report the findings of a prospective cohort study of 6,207 women from North America who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Women were followed from the date of baseline questionnaire to the diagnosis of skin cancer, to age 80 years, death from any cause, or the date of last follow-up. Results During the mean follow-up period of eight years, 3.7% of women with a BRCA1 mutation (133 of 3,623) and 3.8% of women with a BRCA2 mutation (99 of 2,584) reported a diagnosis of skin cancer (including both keratinocyte carcinomas and melanoma). The cumulative risk of all types of skin cancer from age 20 to 80 years was 14.1% for BRCA1 carriers and 10.7% for BRCA2 carriers. The cumulative risk of melanoma was 2.5% for BRCA1 carriers and 2.3% for BRCA2 carriers, compared to 1.5% for women in the general population in the United States. The strongest risk factor for skin cancer was a prior diagnosis of skin cancer. Conclusion The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in women who carry a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is similar to that of non-carrier women. The risk of melanoma appears to be slightly elevated. We suggest that a referral to a dermatologist or primary care provider for BRCA mutation carriers for annual skin examination and counselling regarding limiting UV exposure, the use of sunscreen and recognizing the early signs of melanoma might be warranted, but further studies are necessary.

Objective This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the methods used to recruit and retain ethnically diverse participants and report and analyse variables related to ethnic diversity in randomised controlled trials.Design Umbrella review.Data sources Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane and Campbell Libraries for review papers published between 1 January 2010 and 13 May 2024.Eligibility criteria English language systematic reviews focusing on inclusion and reporting of ethnicity variables. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool.Results Sixty-two systematic reviews were included. Findings point to limited representation and reporting of ethnic diversity in trials. Recruitment strategies commonly reported by the reviews were community engagement, advertisement, face-to-face recruitment, cultural targeting, clinical referral, community presentation, use of technology, incentives and research partnership with communities. Retention strategies highlighted by the reviews included frequent follow-ups on participants to check how they are doing in the study, provision of incentives, use of tailored approaches and culturally appropriate interventions. The findings point to a limited focus on the analysis of variables relevant to ethnic diversity in trials even when they are reported in trials.Conclusion Significant improvements are required in enhancing the recruitment and retention of ethnically diverse participants in trials as well as analysis and reporting of variables relating to diversity in clinical trials.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022325241.

Abstract The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77–94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.

La declaración SPIRIT 2013 tiene como objetivo mejorar la exhaustividad de los informes de los protocolos de los ensayos clínicos proporcionando recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia para el conjunto mínimo de elementos que deben abordarse. Esta guía ha sido fundamental para promover la evaluación transparente de nuevas intervenciones. Más recientemente, se ha reconocido cada vez más que las intervenciones con inteligencia artificial (IA) deben someterse a una evaluación rigurosa y prospectiva para demostrar su impacto en los resultados médicos. La extensión SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence, por sus siglas en inglés) es una nueva directriz para el reporte de los protocolos de ensayos clínicos que evalúan intervenciones con un componente de IA. Esta directriz se desarrolló en paralelo con su declaración complementaria para los informes de ensayos clínicos: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Ambas directrices se desarrollaron a través de un proceso de consenso por etapas que incluía la revisión de la literatura y la consulta a expertos para generar 26 ítems candidatos, que fueron consultados por un grupo internacional de múltiples partes interesadas en una encuesta Delphi de dos etapas (103 partes interesadas), acordados en una reunión de consenso (31 partes interesadas) y refinados a través de una lista de verificación piloto (34 participantes). La ampliación de SPIRIT-AI incluye 15 nuevos elementos que se consideraron suficientemente importantes para los protocolos de los ensayos clínicos con intervenciones de IA. Estos nuevos ítems deben ser reportados rutinariamente además de los ítems centrales de SPIRIT 2013. SPIRIT-AI recomienda que los investigadores proporcionen descripciones claras de la intervención de IA, incluyendo las instrucciones y las habilidades necesarias para su uso, el entorno en el que se integrará la intervención de IA, las consideraciones para el manejo de los datos de entrada y salida, la interacción entre el ser humano y la IA y el análisis de los casos de error. SPIRIT-AI ayudará a promover la transparencia y la exhaustividad de los protocolos de los ensayos clínicos de las intervenciones de IA. Su uso ayudará a los editores y revisores, así como a los lectores en general, a comprender, interpretar y valorar críticamente el diseño y el riesgo de sesgo de un futuro ensayo clínico.

Abstract Background Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C). Methods The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to “lock” the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12–24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations. Discussion SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste. Trial Registration The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

Introduction Large language model (LLM)-linked chatbots are being increasingly applied in healthcare due to their impressive functionality and public availability. Studies have assessed the ability of LLM-linked chatbots to provide accurate clinical advice. However, the methods applied in these Chatbot Assessment Studies are inconsistent due to the lack of reporting standards available, which obscures the interpretation of their study findings. This protocol outlines the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) reporting guideline.Methods and analysis The development of the CHART reporting guideline will consist of three phases, led by the Steering Committee. During phase one, the team will identify relevant reporting guidelines with artificial intelligence extensions that are published or in development by searching preprint servers, protocol databases, and the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health research Network. During phase two, we will conduct a scoping review to identify studies that have addressed the performance of LLM-linked chatbots in summarising evidence and providing clinical advice. The Steering Committee will identify methodology used in previous Chatbot Assessment Studies. Finally, the study team will use checklist items from prior reporting guidelines and findings from the scoping review to develop a draft reporting checklist. We will then perform a Delphi consensus and host two synchronous consensus meetings with an international, multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to refine reporting checklist items and develop a flow diagram.Ethics and dissemination We will publish the final CHART reporting guideline in peer-reviewed journals and will present findings at peer-reviewed meetings. Ethical approval was submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board and deemed “not required” in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) for the development of the CHART reporting guideline (#17025).Registration This study protocol is preregistered with Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/59E2Q.

Abstract Background Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). Methods The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants’ feedback. Results The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. Conclusions By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. Trial registration SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Summary: Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)—thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Adherence to study registration and reporting best practices is vital to fostering evidence-based medicine. All registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Canada as of 2009 and completed by 2019 were identified. A cross-sectional analysis of those trials assessed prospective registration, subsequent result reporting in the registry, and subsequent publication of study findings. The lead sponsor, phase of study, clinical trial site location, total patient enrollment, number of arms, type of masking, type of allocation, year of completion, and patient demographics were examined as potential effect modifiers to these best practices. A total of 6720 trials were identified. From 2009 to 2019, 59% (n = 3,967) of them were registered prospectively, and 32% (n = 2138) had neither their results reported nor their findings published. Of the 3763 trials conducted exclusively in Canada, 3% (n = 123) met all three criteria of prospective registration, reporting in the registry, and publishing findings. Overall, the odds of having adherence to all three practices concurrently in Canadian trials decrease by 95% when compared with international trials. Canadian clinical trials substantially lacked adherence to study registration and reporting best practices. Knowledge of this widespread non-compliance should motivate stakeholders in the Canadian clinical trial ecosystem to address and continue to monitor this problem.

Abstract Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials.

Introduction Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements.Methods and analysis A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions.Ethics and dissemination This project was approved by ICR’s Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites.Registration details SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network.

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.Methods and analysis The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

There is a global rise in skin cancer incidence, resulting in an increase in patient care needs and healthcare costs. To optimize health care planning, costs, and patient care, Ontario Health developed a provincial skin cancer plan to streamline the quality of care. We conducted a systematic review and a grey literature search to evaluate the definitions and management of skin cancer within other jurisdictions, as well as a provincial survey of skin cancer care practices, to identify care gaps. The systematic review did not identify any published comprehensive skin cancer management plans. The grey literature search revealed skin cancer plans in isolated regions of the United Kingdom (U.K.), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for skin cancer quality indicators and regional skin cancer biopsy clinics, and wait time guidelines in Australia and the U.K. With the input of the Ontario Cancer Advisory Committee (CAC), unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancers and the appropriate cancer services were created. A provincial survey of skin cancer care yielded 44 responses and demonstrated gaps in biopsy access. A skin cancer pathway map was created and a recommendation was made for regional skin cancer biopsy clinics. We have created unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancer and a skin cancer pathways map, which will allow for the implementation of both process and performance metrics to address identified gaps in care.

Abstract Background The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is an area of immense interest. The high profile of ‘AI in health’ means that there are unusually strong drivers to accelerate the introduction and implementation of innovative AI interventions, which may not be supported by the available evidence, and for which the usual systems of appraisal may not yet be sufficient. Main text We are beginning to see the emergence of randomised clinical trials evaluating AI interventions in real-world settings. It is imperative that these studies are conducted and reported to the highest standards to enable effective evaluation because they will potentially be a key part of the evidence that is used when deciding whether an AI intervention is sufficiently safe and effective to be approved and commissioned. Minimum reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports have been instrumental in improving the quality of clinical trials and promoting completeness and transparency of reporting for the evaluation of new health interventions. The current guidelines—SPIRIT and CONSORT—are suited to traditional health interventions but research has revealed that they do not adequately address potential sources of bias specific to AI systems. Examples of elements that require specific reporting include algorithm version and the procedure for acquiring input data. In response, the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary group of international experts using a consensus building methodological process. The extensions include a number of new items that should be reported in addition to the core items. Each item, where possible, was informed by challenges identified in existing studies of AI systems in health settings. Conclusion The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines provide the first international standards for clinical trials of AI systems. The guidelines are designed to ensure complete and transparent reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports involving AI interventions and have the potential to improve the quality of these clinical trials through improvements in their design and delivery. Their use will help to efficiently identify the safest and most effective AI interventions and commission them with confidence for the benefit of patients and the public.

Abstract Objective Selective reporting impairs the valid interpretation of trials and leads to bias with regards to the clinical evidence. We aimed to examine factors associated with selective reporting in psychopharmacotherapy trials and thus enable solutions to prevent such selective reporting in the future. Methods We retrieved all registry records of trials investigating medication for depressive, bipolar and psychotic disorders. Multivariate logistic regression was performed with selective reporting as outcome, and funding source, psychiatric disorder, year of study start date, participating centers, and anticipated sample size as explanatory variables, after testing for multicollinearity. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were calculated. Two‐sided Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportions of newly added positive primary outcomes with the proportions of positive results in the overall group of primary outcomes. Results Of 151 included trials (N = 94,303 participants), 21 (14%) showed irregularities between registered and published primary outcomes. Higher odds of such irregularities were associated with non‐industry‐funded RCTs (AOR 5.3; p = 0.014) and trials investigating major depressive disorder (AOR 12.7; p = 0.024) or schizophrenia (AOR 14.5; p = 0.016; Table 1). Conclusion We demonstrate discrepancies between trial registrations and publications across RCTs investigating debilitating psychiatric disorders, especially in non‐industry funded RCTs.

Abstract Background Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development. Methods We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Results In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0–84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources. Conclusions Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

Objectives Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.Design Cross-sectional review.Data sources Medline database.Eligibility criteria Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extraction Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).Results We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p

Background: Protocols are an essential document for conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the completeness of the information provided is often inadequate. To help improve the content of trial protocols, an international group of stakeholders published the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Initiative in 2013. Presently, there is increasing use of cohorts and routinely collected data (RCD) for RCTs because these data have the potential to improve efficiencies by facilitating recruitment, simplifying, and reducing the cost of data collection. Reporting guidelines have been shown to improve the quality of reporting, but there is currently no specific SPIRIT guidance on protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. This protocol outlines steps for developing SPIRIT-ROUTINE, which aims to address this gap by extending the SPIRIT guidance to protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. Methods: The development of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension comprises five stages. Stage 1 consists of a project launch and a meeting to finalise the membership of the steering group and scope of the extension. In Stage 2, a rapid review will be performed to identify possible modifications to the original SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Other key reporting guidelines will be reviewed to identify areas where additional items may be needed, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Stage 3 will involve an online Delphi exercise, consisting of two rounds and involving key international stakeholders to gather feedback on the preliminary checklist items. In Stage 4, a consensus meeting of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE steering group will finalise the items to include in the extension. Stage 5 will involve the publication preparation and dissemination of the final checklist. Conclusion: The SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension will contribute to improving design of trials using cohorts and RCD and transparency of reporting.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients’ symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item’s importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Abstract Background Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. Methods The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. Discussion InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.

Summary: The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human–AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Summary: The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human–AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

Abstract Background Recognizing the value of promoting public access to clinical trial protocols, Trials pioneered the way for their publication over a decade ago. However, despite major advances in the public accessibility of information about trial methods and results, protocol sharing remains relatively rare. Main body Protocol sharing facilitates the critical appraisal of clinical trials and helps to identify and deter the selective reporting of outcomes and analyses. Challenges to the routine availability of high quality trial protocols include the gaps in incentives and adherence mechanisms, limited venues for sharing the original and final protocol versions, and the need for mechanisms to ensure transparent and complete protocol content. Conclusions We propose recommendations for addressing key challenges to protocol sharing in order to promote routine public access to protocols for the benefit of patients and other users of evidence from clinical trials.

Abstract Background N-of-1 trials are multiple cross-over trials done in individual participants, generating individual treatment effect information. While reporting guidelines for the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) already exist, there is no standardized recommendation for the reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate current literature on N-of-1 design and reporting to identify key elements of rigorous N-of-1 protocol design. Methods We will conduct a systematic search for all N-of-1 trial guidelines and protocol-reporting guidelines published in peer-reviewed literature. We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Eligible articles will contain explicit guidance on N-of-1 protocol construction or reporting. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and then undertake full-text reviews of potential articles to determine eligibility. One reviewer will perform data extraction of selected articles, checked by the second reviewer. Data analysis will ascertain common features of N-of-1 trial protocols and compare them to the SPIRIT and CENT items. Discussion This systematic review assesses recommendations on the design and reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols. These findings will inform an international Delphi development process for an N-of-1 trial protocol reporting guideline. The development of this guideline is critical for improving the quality of N-of-1 protocols, leading to improvements in the quality of published N-of-1 trial research.

This study explores Taiwanese junior high school social studies teachers' definitions of sustainability, using a qualitative semi-structured interview approach. Three themes explaining these teachers' definitions are cycling, cultural sustainability, and balancing, harmony, and coexisting. These definitions unveil an alternative worldview that is non-Eurocentric-based and multifaceted dimensions of sustainability. Findings suggest that instead of claiming that we should have a consistent definition to guide teachers to implement environmental and sustainability education across different subjects, it is important to acknowledge the fact that teachers trained in different disciplines and of different cultural backgrounds need a whole range of support to incorporate sustainability goals successfully in their teaching. Supported by results of this study, social studies teachers can reasonably support the teaching of controversial issues about tensions between cultural sustainability and economic development.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence in the medical literature suggests that trial registration may not be preventing selective reporting of results. We wondered about the place of such information in the peer-review process. METHOD: We asked 1,503 corresponding authors of clinical trials and 1,733 reviewers to complete an online survey soliciting their views on the use of trial registry information during the peer-review process. RESULTS: 1,136 authors (n = 713) and reviewers (n = 423) responded (37.5%); 676 (59.5%) had reviewed an article reporting a clinical trial in the past 2 years. Among these, 232 (34.3%) examined information registered on a trial registry. If one or more items (primary outcome, eligibility criteria, etc.) differed between the registry record and the manuscript, 206 (88.8%) mentioned the discrepancy in their review comments, 46 (19.8%) advised editors not to accept the manuscript, and 8 did nothing. The reviewers' reasons for not using the trial registry information included a lack of registration number in the manuscript (n = 132; 34.2%), lack of time (n = 128; 33.2%), lack of usefulness of registered information for peer review (n = 100; 25.9%), lack of awareness about registries (n = 54; 14%), and excessive complexity of the process (n = 39; 10.1%). CONCLUSION: This survey revealed that only one-third of the peer reviewers surveyed examined registered trial information and reported any discrepancies to journal editors.

BackgroundAlthough randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results.Methods and findingsThe objective of the study was to evaluate the reporting of key methodologic study characteristics in trial registries. We identified a random sample (n = 265) of actively recruiting RCTs using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in 2008. We assessed the reporting of relevant domains from the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool and other key methodological aspects. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of registry records with adequate reporting of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and trial outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each record. Weighted overall proportions in the ICTRP search portal for adequate reporting of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (including and excluding open label RCT) and primary outcomes were 5.7% (95% CI 3.0-8.4%), 1.4% (0-2.8%), 41% (35-47%), 8.4% (4.1-13%), and 66% (60-72%), respectively. The proportion of adequately reported RCTs was higher for registries that used specific methodological fields for describing methods of randomization and allocation concealment compared to registries that did not. Concerning other key methodological aspects, weighted overall proportions of RCTs with adequately reported items were as follows: eligibility criteria (81%), secondary outcomes (46%), harm (5%) follow-up duration (62%), description of the interventions (53%) and sample size calculation (1%).ConclusionsTrial registries currently contain limited methodologic information about registered RCTs. In order to permit adequate critical appraisal of trial results reported in journals and registries, trial registries should consider requesting details on key RCT methods to complement journal publications. Full protocols remain the most comprehensive source of methodologic information and should be made publicly available.

BackgroundDrug development is ideally a logical sequence in which information from small early studies (Phase I) is subsequently used to inform and plan larger, more definitive studies (Phases II-IV). Phase I trials are unique because they generally provide the first evaluation of new drugs in humans. The conduct and dissemination of Phase I trials have not previously been empirically evaluated. Our objective was to describe the initiation, completion, and publication of Phase I trials in comparison with Phase II-IV trials.Methods and findingsWe reviewed a cohort of all protocols approved by a sample of ethics committees in France from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994. The comparison of 140 Phase I trials with 304 Phase II-IV trials, showed that Phase I studies were more likely to be initiated (133/140 [95%] versus 269/304 [88%]), more likely to be completed (127/133 [95%] versus 218/269 [81%]), and more likely to produce confirmatory results (71/83 [86%] versus 125/175 [71%]) than Phase II-IV trials. Publication was less frequent for Phase I studies (21/127 [17%] versus 93/218 [43%]), even if only accounting for studies providing confirmatory results (18/71 [25%] versus 79/125 [63%]).ConclusionsThe initiation, completion, and publications of Phase I trials are different from those of other studies. Moreover, the results of these trials should be published in order to ensure the integrity of the overall body of scientific knowledge, and ultimately the safety of future trial participants and patients.

The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

BACKGROUND: In September 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued a Statement requiring that all clinical trials be registered at inception in a public register in order to be considered for publication. The World Health Organization (WHO) and ICMJE have identified 20 items that should be provided before a trial is considered registered, including contact information. Identifying those scientifically responsible for trial conduct increases accountability. The objective is to examine the proportion of registered clinical trials providing valid scientific leadership information. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We reviewed clinical trial entries listing Canadian investigators in the two largest international and public trial registers, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The main outcome measures were the proportion of clinical trials reporting valid contact information for the trials' Principal Investigator (PI)/Co-ordinating Investigator/Study Chair/Site PI, and trial e-mail contact address, stratified by funding source, recruiting status, and register. A total of 1388 entries (142 from ISRCTN and 1246 from ClinicalTrials.gov) comprised our sample. We found non-compliance with mandatory registration requirements regarding scientific leadership and trial contact information. Non-industry and partial industry funded trials were significantly more likely to identify the individual responsible for scientific leadership (OR = 259, 95% CI: 95-701) and to provide a contact e-mail address (OR = 9.6, 95% CI: 6.6-14) than were solely industry funded trials. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Despite the requirements set by WHO and ICMJE, data on scientific leadership and contact e-mail addresses are frequently omitted from clinical trials registered in the two leading public clinical trial registers. To promote accountability and transparency in clinical trials research, public clinical trials registers should ensure adequate monitoring of trial registration to ensure completion of mandatory contact information fields identifying scientific leadership.

BackgroundGhost authorship, the failure to name, as an author, an individual who has made substantial contributions to an article, may result in lack of accountability. The prevalence and nature of ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is not known.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cohort study comparing protocols and corresponding publications for industry-initiated trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994-1995. We defined ghost authorship as present if individuals who wrote the trial protocol, performed the statistical analyses, or wrote the manuscript, were not listed as authors of the publication, or as members of a study group or writing committee, or in an acknowledgment. We identified 44 industry-initiated trials. We did not find any trial protocol or publication that stated explicitly that the clinical study report or the manuscript was to be written or was written by the clinical investigators, and none of the protocols stated that clinical investigators were to be involved with data analysis. We found evidence of ghost authorship for 33 trials (75%; 95% confidence interval 60%-87%). The prevalence of ghost authorship was increased to 91% (40 of 44 articles; 95% confidence interval 78%-98%) when we included cases where a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author. In 31 trials, the ghost authors we identified were statisticians. It is likely that we have overlooked some ghost authors, as we had very limited information to identify the possible omission of other individuals who would have qualified as authors.ConclusionsGhost authorship in industry-initiated trials is very common. Its prevalence could be considerably reduced, and transparency improved, if existing guidelines were followed, and if protocols were publicly available.

The rapid development of photo‐synergistic transition metal catalytic systems has provided a green paradigm to complement thermal transition metal catalytic methods. However, the most commonly used iridium or ruthenium complexes involve expensive in nature, in contrast to the abundant copper elements in the earth's crust, which are highly valued for their unique electronic structure and light‐absorbing properties. Recently, the application of copper and photocatalytic synergistic strategies in radical cyclization reactions has progressed considerably, leading to a renaissance in the synthesis of functional natural products, drugs and their analogues, but summary work addressing this aspect has not been reported. In this review, we briefly analyze the effect of ligand choice on copper complexes and some inorganic copper salts and even on light sources. We then summarize the copper and photocatalytic synergistic strategies in radical cyclization reactions and classify them into three categories, C, N and O radicals, according to the class of the central atom of the radical in each work, and in each category will be elaborated in turn from coordination cyclization via Cu catalysts, direct radical cyclization and other cyclization mode. For individual more complex reactions, the mechanisms are explored and briefly discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes contributes to a spectrum of complications encompassing microvascular and macrovascular disorders. This study aimed to explore the correlation between distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) severity and heightened carotid atherosclerosis among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Method: Participants underwent comprehensive assessments including nerve conduction studies (NCS), Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (TCNS) evaluations, assessment of cardiometabolic risk factors, and carotid sonography studies covering dynamic and morphological parameters. The resistance index (RI), pulsatility index (PI), peak systolic velocity (PSV), and end-diastolic velocity (EDV) in both the common carotid artery (CCA) and internal carotid artery (ICA), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), and carotid plaque score (CPS) were also measured. Peripheral nerve function severity was assessed using composite amplitude scores (CAS) derived from NCS. Results: Individuals with DSPN exhibited lower EDV in the CCA and ICA (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.002), higher PI and RI in both CCA and ICA (all p < 0.0001), and higher CPS (p = 0.002). They also demonstrated a higher prevalence of retinopathy as an underlying condition, higher index HbA1c, and reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (all p < 0.0001). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed significant associations where eGFR, ICA-PI, index HbA1c, waist circumference, and age were correlated with CAS. Meanwhile, diabetes duration, waist circumference, age, and index HbA1c showed significant associations with TCNS. Conclusions: Our study suggests that individuals with T2DM who exhibit more severe carotid atherosclerosis may not only be at increased risk of developing DSPN but also may experience greater severity of DSPN. PI in both the CCA and ICA, along with the CPS, serve as surrogate biomarkers for DSPN severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.