9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports : The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.

          Objective

          To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.

          Evidence Review

          Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 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 the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.

          Findings

          The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

          Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

              High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                December 13 2022
                December 13 2022
                : 328
                : 22
                : 2252
                Affiliations
                [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
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2022.21022
                36511921
                5c7e2427-4983-4a86-807d-0ac24570946b
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article