TARG Meta-Research Group & Collaborators. Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses

SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomized trials

The protocol of a randomized trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. Here, we aimed to systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomized trial. We completed a scoping review and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence-based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrollment, interventions and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators and other reviewers.

SPIRIT 2025 Statement: Updated Guideline for Protocols of Randomized Trials

Importance

The protocol of a randomized trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. Herein, we systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomized trial.

Observations

We completed a scoping review and developed a project specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (harms, outcomes, nonpharmacological treatment) and other reporting guidelines (Template for Intervention Description and Replication [TIDieR]). The potential modifications were rated in a 3-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of 2 new protocol items, revision to 5 items, deletion/merger of 5 items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open-science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document.

Conclusions and Relevance

Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policy makers, regulators, and other reviewers.

SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials

IMPORTANCE

The protocol of a randomised trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomised trial.

DESIGN

We completed a scoping review and developed a project specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting.

FINDINGS

Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other reviewers.

SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials

IMPORTANCE

The protocol of a randomised trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomised trial.

DESIGN

We completed a scoping review and developed a project specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting.

FINDINGS

Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence-based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other reviewers.

Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs

BACKGROUND

Increasing transparency in clinical research is crucial to avoid misleading conclusions. Registering clinical trials prior to participant enrolment is mandatory, and the publication of trial protocols could further enhance transparency. However, the impact of protocol publication on primary outcomes (PO) and sample sizes (SS) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the rates of trial protocol publication and registration for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the consistency of published and registered PO and SS.

METHODS

A search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed® for RCT reports indexed in May and June 2023 across various medical specialties, focusing on general and high-impact factor journals. Data were extracted regarding trial registration, protocol publication, and comparisons were made between PO and SS in articles, registries, and published protocols.

RESULTS

Out of 1119 references, 589 (52.6%) were RCTs. The corresponding protocol was published for 146 RCTs (24.8%) including 40 over 140 (28.6%) (6 without end date available) after the trial had ended. Sixty-two (42.4%) protocols were published before the trial conclusion, with no significant differences between PO and SS in published protocols and their corresponding articles. Five hundred and twenty-eight (89.6%) RCTs were registered, 225 over 510 (44%) were registered before the study start with no differences in PO and SS between article and registry. Articles published in generalist or high impact factor journals were associated with higher frequencies of published protocols and trial registration and a lower frequency of difference in PO and SS between articles, registries, and published protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

While publishing trial protocols may enhance transparency in peer-review process, the initial registered protocol alone appears sufficient for ensuring consistency in primary outcomes and sample sizes. Protocol publication does not seem to provide additional significant benefits in terms of outcome reporting.

Supporting study registration to reduce research waste

An estimated 82-89% of ecological research and 85% of medical research has limited or no value to the end user because of various inefficiencies. We argue that registration and registered reports can enhance the quality and impact of ecological research. Drawing on evidence from other fields, chiefly medicine, we support our claim that registration can reduce research waste. However, increasing registration rates, quality and impact will be very slow without coordinated effort of funders, publishers and research institutions. We therefore call on them to facilitate the adoption of registration by providing adequate support. We outline several aspects to be considered when designing a registration system that would best serve the field of ecology. To further inform the development of such a system, we call for more research to identify the causes of low registration rates in ecology. We suggest short- and long-term actions to bolster registration and reduce research waste.

Evidence-b(i)ased practice: Selective and inadequate reporting in early childhood autism intervention research

LAY ABSTRACT

When researchers fail to report their findings or only report some of their findings, it can make it difficult for clinicians to provide effective intervention recommendations. However, no one has examined whether this is a problem in studies of early childhood autism interventions. We studied how researchers that study early childhood autism interventions report their findings. We found that most researchers did not register their studies when they were supposed to (before the start of the study), and that many researchers did not provide all of the needed information in the registration. We also found that researchers frequently did not publish their findings when their studies were complete. When we looked at published reports, we found that many of the studies did not report enough information, and that many studies were reported differently from their registrations, suggesting that researchers were selectively reporting positive outcomes and ignoring or misrepresenting less positive outcomes. Because we found so much evidence that researchers are failing to report their findings quickly and correctly, we suggested some practical changes to make it better.

Exploration of registration and the risk of bias in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the predominant type in acupuncture clinical research, and the publications have increased rapidly in recent years, but there is a prevalence of the high risk of bias and poor methodological design in acupuncture RCTs. Clinical trial registration can improve the transparency and credibility of studies by disclosing key information in advance. However, the registration in acupuncture RCTs is not satisfactory, as there is widespread of the under-registration, inconsistency with published studies and insufficient disclosure of key methodological information. Whether registration can reduce the risk of bias in acupuncture RCTs and improve data transparency has not been fully explored. Therefore, we constructed this study to investigate the association between registration and risk of bias and data sharing level in acupuncture RCTs.

METHODS

Seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases will be systematically searched between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2024, for acupuncture RCTs. Two reviewers will independently extract data using a predefined standardised format and perform secondary validation. The characteristics and data sharing level of the included studies will be summarised. The risk of bias of included RCTs will be assessed by the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The risk of bias and registration in acupuncture RCTs will be analysed by logistic or quantile regression analyses (depending on the number of minimum events). The data sharing level and registration will be analysed by quantile regression analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As the systematic review aims to consolidate info from published sources, ethical approval is not necessary for this study. The study's findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal and disseminated via conference presentations. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries.