Dataset Information

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS:Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs. DISCUSSION:The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

SUBMITTER: Gryaznov D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7594472 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects.

Gryaznov Dmitry D Odutayo Ayodele A von Niederhäusern Belinda B Speich Benjamin B Kasenda Benjamin B Ojeda-Ruiz Elena E Blümle Anette A Schandelmaier Stefan S Mertz Dominik D Tomonaga Yuki Y Amstutz Alain A Pauli-Magnus Christiane C Gloy Viktoria V Bischoff Karin K Wollmann Katharina K Rehner Laura L Lohner Szimonetta S Meerpohl Joerg J JJ Nordmann Alain A Klatte Katharina K Ghosh Nilabh N Heravi Ala Taji AT Wong Jacqueline J Chow Ngai N Hong Patrick Jiho PJ Cord Kimberly Mc KM Sricharoenchai Sirintip S Busse Jason W JW Agarwal Arnav A Saccilotto Ramon R Schwenkglenks Matthias M Moffa Giusi G Hemkens Lars G LG Hopewell Sally S von Elm Erik E Briel Matthias M

Trials 20201028 1

<h4>Background</h4>Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol ...[more]

PMID: 33115541

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesComprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist.DesignRepeated cross sectional study.SettingSwiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs).ParticipantsRCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reported RESULTS: The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%-79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%-82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%-72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%-83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%-80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship.ConclusionsIn 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve.

Project description:BackgroundThe Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement has improved the quality of reporting of randomised trial protocols. Extensions to the SPIRIT statement are needed to address specific issues of trial protocol reporting, including those relevant to particular types of interventions. Methodological and reporting deficiencies in protocols of clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices are common. The SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension is a new reporting guideline for randomised controlled trial protocols evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices.MethodsSPIRIT-iNeurostim was developed using the EQUATOR methodological framework including a literature review and expert consultation to generate an initial list of candidate items. The candidate items were included in a two-round Delphi survey, discussed at an international consensus meeting (42 stakeholders including healthcare professionals, methodologists, journal editors and industry representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands and other countries), and refined through a checklist pilot (18 stakeholders).FindingsThe initial extension item list included 42 candidate items relevant to SPIRIT-iNeurostim. We received 132 responses in the first round of the Delphi survey and 99 responses in the second round. Participants suggested an additional 14 candidate items for SPIRIT-iNeurostim during the first round of the survey, and those achieving initial consensus were discussed at the consensus meeting. The SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension includes 5 new checklist items, including one item for reporting the neurostimulation intervention comprising a separate checklist of 14 items.InterpretationThe SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension will help to promote increased transparency, clarity, and completeness of reporting trial protocols evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices. It will assist journal editors, peer-reviewers, and readers to better interpret the appropriateness and generalisability of the methods used for a planned clinical trial.FundingAbbott, Boston Scientific Corp., Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd, Nevro Corp., and Saluda Medical.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians, 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsOutcome 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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the reporting quality of published randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols before and after the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement (2013), and any association with author, trial or journal factors.DesignMethodological study.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were electronically searched using optimised search strategies.Eligibility criteriaProtocols written for an RCT of living humans, published in full text in a peer-reviewed journal and published in the English language.Main outcomePrimary outcome was the overall proportion of checklist items which were adequately reported in RCT protocols published before and after the SPIRIT statement.Results300 RCT protocols were retrieved; 150 from the period immediately before the SPIRIT statement (9 July 2012 to 28 December 2012) and 150 from a recent period after the SPIRIT statement (25 January 2019 to 20 March 2019). 47.9% (95% CI, 46.5% to 49.3%) of checklist items were adequately reported in RCT protocols before the SPIRIT statement and 56.7% (95% CI, 54.9% to 58.5%) after the SPIRIT statement. This represents an 8.8% (95% CI, 6.6% to 11.1%; p<0.0001) mean improvement in the overall proportion of checklist items adequately reported since the SPIRIT statement. While 40% of individual checklist items had a significant improvement in adequate reporting after the SPIRIT statement, 11.3% had a significant deterioration and there were no RCT protocols in which all individual checklist items were complete. The factors associated with higher reporting quality of RCT protocols in multiple regression analysis were author expertise or experience in epidemiology or statistics, multicentre trials, longer protocol word length and publicly reported journal policy of compliance with the SPIRIT statement.ConclusionThe overall reporting quality of RCT protocols has significantly improved since the SPIRIT statement, although a substantial proportion of individual checklist items remain poorly reported. Continued and concerted efforts are required by journals, editors, reviewers and investigators to improve the completeness and transparency of RCT protocols.

Project description:Transparent and accurate reporting in early phase dose-finding (EPDF) clinical trials is crucial for informing subsequent larger trials. The SPIRIT statement, designed for trial protocol content, does not adequately cover the distinctive features of EPDF trials. Recent findings indicate that the protocol contents in past EPDF trials frequently lacked completeness and clarity. To address this gap, the international consensus-driven SPIRIT-DEFINE checklist was developed through a robust methodological framework for guideline development, with the aim to improve completeness and clarity in EPDF trial protocols. The checklist builds on the SPIRIT statement, adding 17 new items and modifying 15 existing ones.The SPIRIT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration (E&E) document provides comprehensive information to enhance understanding and usability of the SPIRIT-DEFINE checklist when writing an EPDF trial protocol. Each new or modified checklist item is accompanied by a detailed description, its rationale with supportive evidence, and examples of good reporting curated from EPDF trial protocols covering a range of therapeutic areas and interventions. We recommend utilising this paper alongside the SPIRIT statement, and any relevant extensions, to enhance the development and review of EPDF trial protocols.By facilitating adoption of the SPIRIT-DEFINE statement for EPDF trials, this E&E document can promote enhancement of methodological rigour, patient safety, transparency, and facilitate the generation of high-quality, reproducible evidence that will strengthen the foundation of early phase research and ultimately improve patient outcomes.FundingThis work is a further extension of the SPIRIT-DEFINE study, which obtained no external funding. The principal investigator (CY) used internal staff resources, together with additional resources from external partners, to conduct this study. The SPIRIT-DEFINE study is a component of the DEFINE project, which also developed the MRC/NIHR funded CONSORT-DEFINE guidance. ICR-CTSU receives programmatic infrastructure funding from Cancer Research UK (C1491/A25351; CTUQQR-Dec22/100004), which has contributed to accelerating the advancement and successful completion of this work.

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal adherence to data collection procedures or a study intervention is often the cause of a failed clinical trial. Data from connected sensors, including wearables, referred to here as biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs), are capable of capturing adherence to both digital therapeutics and digital data collection procedures, thereby providing the opportunity to identify the determinants of adherence and thereafter, methods to maximize adherence.ObjectiveWe aim to describe the methods and definitions by which adherence has been captured and reported using BioMeTs in recent years. Identifying key gaps allowed us to make recommendations regarding minimum reporting requirements and consistency of definitions for BioMeT-based adherence data.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies published between 2014 and 2019, which deployed a BioMeT outside the clinical or laboratory setting for which a quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based measurement of adherence was reported. After systematically screening the manuscripts for eligibility, we extracted details regarding study design, participants, the BioMeT or BioMeTs used, and the definition and units of adherence. The primary definitions of adherence were categorized as a continuous variable based on duration (highest resolution), a continuous variable based on the number of measurements completed, or a categorical variable (lowest resolution).ResultsOur PubMed search terms identified 940 manuscripts; 100 (10.6%) met our eligibility criteria and contained descriptions of 110 BioMeTs. During literature screening, we found that 30% (53/177) of the studies that used a BioMeT outside of the clinical or laboratory setting failed to report a sensor-based, nonsurrogate, quantitative measurement of adherence. We identified 37 unique definitions of adherence reported for the 110 BioMeTs and observed that uniformity of adherence definitions was associated with the resolution of the data reported. When adherence was reported as a continuous time-based variable, the same definition of adherence was adopted for 92% (46/50) of the tools. However, when adherence data were simplified to a categorical variable, we observed 25 unique definitions of adherence reported for 37 tools.ConclusionsWe recommend that quantitative, nonsurrogate, sensor-based adherence data be reported for all BioMeTs when feasible; a clear description of the sensor or sensors used to capture adherence data, the algorithm or algorithms that convert sample-level measurements to a metric of adherence, and the analytic validation data demonstrating that BioMeT-generated adherence is an accurate and reliable measurement of actual use be provided when available; and primary adherence data be reported as a continuous variable followed by categorical definitions if needed, and that the categories adopted are supported by clinical validation data and/or consistent with previous reports.

Dataset Information

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects.

Publications

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets