Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols

Author:

Butcher Nancy J.12,Monsour Andrea1,Mew Emma J.13,Chan An-Wen4,Moher David56,Mayo-Wilson Evan7,Terwee Caroline B.89,Chee-A-Tow Alyssandra1,Baba Ami1,Gavin Frank10,Grimshaw Jeremy M.1112,Kelly Lauren E.1314,Saeed Leena1,Thabane Lehana15,Askie Lisa16,Smith Maureen17,Farid-Kapadia Mufiza1,Williamson Paula R.18,Szatmari Peter1920,Tugwell Peter6122122,Golub Robert M.23,Monga Suneeta220,Vohra Sunita24,Marlin Susan2526,Ungar Wendy J.127,Offringa Martin12728

Affiliation:

1. Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

3. Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

4. Department of Medicine, Women’s College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

5. Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

6. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

7. Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

8. Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

9. Department of Methodology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

10. public panel member, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

11. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

12. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

13. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

14. Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

15. Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

16. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

17. patient panel member, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

18. MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England

19. Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

20. Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

21. Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

22. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

23. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois

24. Departments of Pediatrics and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

25. Clinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, Canada

26. Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

27. Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

28. Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

ImportanceComplete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.ObjectiveTo develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.Evidence ReviewUsing the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.FindingsThe scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).Conclusions and RelevanceThis SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3