"We are not invited": Australian focus group results on how to improve ethnic diversity in trials

OBJECTIVE

Lack of ethnic diversity in trials may contribute to health disparities and to inequity in health outcomes. The primary objective was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse populations about how to improve ethnic diversity in trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative data were collected via 16 focus groups with participants from 21 ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Data collection took place between August and September 2022 in community-based settings in six capital cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Darwin and one rural town: Bordertown (South Australia).

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty eight purposively sampled adults (aged 18-85, 49% women), participated in groups speaking Tamil, Greek, Punjabi, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Karin, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and Arabic; or English-language groups (comprising Fijian, Filipino, African, and 2 multicultural groups). Only 10 participants had previously taken part in medical research including three in trials. There was support for medical research, including trials, however, most participants had never been invited to participate. To increase ethnic diversity in trial populations, participants recommended recruitment via partnering with communities, translating trial materials and making them culturally accessible using audiovisual ways, promoting retention by minimizing participant burden, establishing trust and rapport between participants and researchers, and sharing individual results. Participants were reluctant to join studies on taboo topics in their communities (e.g., sexual health) or in which physical specimens (e.g., blood) were needed. Participants said these barriers could be mitigated by communicating about the topic in more culturally cognizant and safe ways, explaining how data would be securely stored, and reinforcing the benefit of medical research to humanity.

CONCLUSION

Participants recognized the principal benefits of trials and other medical research, were prepared to take part, and offered suggestions on recruitment, consent, data collection mechanisms, and retention to enable this to occur. Researchers should consider these community insights when designing and conducting trials; and government, regulators, funders, and publishers should allow for greater innovation and flexibility in their processes to enable ethnic diversity in trials to improve.

Methods used to develop the SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements

OBJECTIVES

To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines.

METHODS

We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonization of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines, and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees.

RESULTS

We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n = 5) or CONSORT (n = 28). Of 463 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n = 0; CONSORT n = 14) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (≥80% agreement), and participants provided 3580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n = 2; CONSORT n = 2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity.

CONCLUSION

The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonized guidance for reporting randomized controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

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.

Association between dermatology follow-up and melanoma survival: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that patients with melanoma undergo dermatologic examination at least annually. Adherence to follow-up and its impact on survival are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the level of adherence to annual dermatologic follow-up in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, identify predictors for better adherence, and evaluate whether adherence was associated with melanoma-related mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective inception cohort analysis of adults with primary invasive melanoma in Ontario, Canada from 2010 to 2013 with follow-up until December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Adherence to dermatologic follow-up was variable with only 28.0% of patients seeing a dermatologist at least annually (median follow-up 5.0 years). Younger age, female sex, higher income, greater access to dermatology care, stage 2/3 melanoma, prior keratinocyte carcinoma, fewer comorbidities, and any outpatient visit in the 12 months prior to melanoma diagnosis were predictors for adherence. Greater adherence to annual dermatology visits was associated with reduced melanoma-specific mortality compared with lower levels of adherence (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78).

LIMITATIONS

Observational study design and inability to identify skin examinations performed by non-dermatologists.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to annual dermatology visits after melanoma diagnosis was low. Greater adherence may promote better patient survival but warrants confirmation in further research including randomized trials.

Top 10 research priorities for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: results of the Skin Investigation Network of Canada Priority Setting Initiative

The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) completed a national priority-setting initiative to identify the top 10 knowledge uncertainties for SCC based on the James Lind Alliance principles. Overall, 64 patients, clinicians and researchers provided input in two survey rounds and one workshop. The top 10 list of research priorities will help the skin research community, funders and policymakers to address key knowledge uncertainties for the benefit of patients with SCC.

Characterizing the cutaneous late effects of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a well-documented risk of secondary cutaneous malignancies following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), but data on risk in pediatric populations are limited. The objective of this study is to perform a systematic review of reported features and outcomes of skin cancers in pediatric allogeneic HSCT recipients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science were systematically searched (Prospero CRD42022342139). Studies reporting cutaneous cancer outcomes were included if the age at transplant was ≤19 years. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened in duplicate.

RESULTS

Out of 824 citations that were screened, 12 articles were selected for analysis. The final sample included 67 pediatric HSCT recipients, comprising 65 allogeneic transplant recipients and 2 cases of HSCT with an unknown donor type. The median age at transplant and skin cancer diagnosis were 7.4 and 13 years, respectively. Out of the 67 pediatric HSCT recipients, some patients developed more than one lesion, resulting in 71 lesions. The most common skin cancer type was cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (32 lesions), followed by basal cell carcinoma (25 lesions). The median latency period between HSCT and skin cancer diagnosis ranged from 0 to 29 years. Identified risk factors for skin cancers included younger age at the time of transplant, exposure to total body irradiation, prolonged post-transplant immunosuppression, graft versus host disease, and sunburn.

CONCLUSION

Skin cancers are reported in pediatric allogeneic HSCT recipients, and the risk appears to be increased. More data are needed to better characterize this risk.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children

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 ).

Top 10 research priorities for basal cell carcinoma: results of the Skin Investigation Network of Canada Priority Setting Initiative

The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) completed a national priority setting initiative to identify the top 10 knowledge uncertainties for BCC based on the James Lind Alliance principles. Overall, 91 patients, clinicians and researchers provided input in two survey rounds and one workshop. The top 10 list of research priorities will help the skin research community, funders and policymakers to address key knowledge uncertainties for the benefit of patients with BCC.

Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) Priority Setting Initiative ranks the top 10 evidence uncertainties for Merkel cell carcinoma

The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) completed a national Priority Setting Initiative to identify the top 10 knowledge uncertainties for Merkel cell carcinoma based on the James Lind Alliance principles. Overall, 48 patients, clinicians and researchers provided input in two survey rounds and one workshop. The top 10 list of research priorities will help the skin research community, funders and policymakers to address key knowledge uncertainties for the benefit of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement

Importance

Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials.

Design

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist.

Findings

This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement

Importance

Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials.

Evidence Review

The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist.

Findings

This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

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.

Incidence, Mortality, and Survival of Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Population Based-Studies

BACKGROUND

Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer that most commonly occurs in UV-exposed body sites. Its epidemiology in different geographies and populations is not well characterised.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to summarize evidence on the incidence, mortality, and survival rates of MCC from population-based studies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to June 6th, 2023. No geographic, age or date exclusions were applied. We included population-based studies of MCC that reported the incidence, survival, or mortality rate, and considered systematic reviews. A data-charting form was created and validated to identify variables to extract. Two reviewers then independently charted the data for each included study with patient characteristics, and estimates of incidence rate, mortality rate, and survival rate and assessed the quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. We abstracted age-, sex-, stage- and race-stratified outcomes, and synthesized comparisons between strata narratively and using vote counting. We assessed the certainty of evidence for those comparisons using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments and Evaluations framework.

RESULTS

We identified 11,472 citations, of which 52 studies from 24 countries met our inclusion criteria. Stage 1 and the head and neck were the most frequently reported stage and location at diagnosis. The incidence of MCC is increasing over time (high certainty), with the highest reported incidences reported in Southern hemisphere countries (Australia [2.5 per 100,000], New Zealand [0.96 per 100,000]) (high certainty). Male patients generally had higher incidence rates compared to female patients (high certainty), although there were some variations over time periods. Survival rates varied, with lower survival and/or higher mortality associated with male sex (moderate certainty), higher stage at diagnosis (moderate-to-high certainty), older age (moderate certainty), and immunosuppression (low-to-moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

MCC is increasing in incidence and may increase further given the ageing population of many countries. The prognosis of MCC is poor, particularly for males, those who are immunosuppressed, and patients diagnosed at higher stages or at an older age.

Demystifying the Role of Radiation Dose Bath in Brain Injury Using Machine Learning

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

It is well known that high-dose radiation results in brain injury, the long-term effects of low-dose radiation, however, is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of low-dose bath on MRI changes, on both clinical and micro-architectural levels, using machine learning and computational methods.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Six hundreds and fifty-six temporal lobe and 45 whole brain DVHs from patients treated for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) with IMRT or proton were included in this study. Temporal lobe injury (TLI) was defined as development of new T1 enhancement on MRI with or without surrounding T2 edema. Patients were divided randomly into train (50%) and test (50%) sets. Accuracy and AUC were used to evaluate the model performance. Minimum redundancy maximum relevance (MRMR) or SHAP algorithms was employed for feature selection. Support vector machine or random forest was used for classification. Automated cortical region segmentation using FreeSurfer v6 was performed in 33 patients with a minimum follow-up of 4 years. Architectural and biological MRI changes were determined in 34 different brain regions for each individual patient.

RESULTS

The top-ranked temporal lobe features predicting TLI were V66/V38 for IMRT patients and V10 for proton patients with an AUC of 0.95 and 0.74, respectively. For whole brain, the top features were V16 and V13 with an AUC of 0.70. The rates of TLI at 5 years for V10-20(whole brain) ≥ 180cc and V10-20(whole brain) < 180 were 39.5% and 6.2%, respectively (HR = 5.5, 95% CI 1.4-22.0, p = 0.02). There were global changes in gray matter thickness, with most pronounced changes occurred in parietal lobe (-4.79%, p = 0.007) and occipital lobe (-5.68%, p = 0.03). Similarly, there were diffuse changes in white matter and subcortical volume. After radiation, the frontal lobe increased by 17.5% (p = 0.04), lateral ventricle 41% (p = 0.03), and choroid plexus 34.3% (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Low-dose radiation bath is associated with increased risk of temporal lobe injury and global disruption in brain architecture in NPC survivors.

Definitions, acceptability, limitations, and guidance in the use and reporting of surrogate end points in trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current literature on the use of surrogate end points, including definitions, acceptability, and limitations of surrogate end points and guidance for their design/reporting, into trial reporting items.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Literature was identified through searching bibliographic databases (until March 1, 2022) and gray literature sources (until May 27, 2022). Data were thematically analyzed into four categories: (1) definitions, (2) acceptability, (3) limitations and challenges, and (4) guidance, and synthesized into reporting guidance items.

RESULTS

After screening, 90 documents were included: 79% (n = 71) had data on definitions, 77% (n = 69) on acceptability, 72% (n = 65) on limitations and challenges, and 61% (n = 55) on guidance. Data were synthesized into 17 potential trial reporting items: explicit statements on the use of surrogate end point(s) and justification for their use (items 1-6); methodological considerations, including whether sample size calculations were informed by surrogate validity (items 7-9); reporting of results for composite outcomes containing a surrogate end point (item 10); discussion and interpretation of findings (items 11-14); plans for confirmatory studies, collecting data on the surrogate end point and target outcome, and data sharing (items 15-16); and informing trial participants about using surrogate end points (item 17).

CONCLUSION

The review identified and synthesized items on the use of surrogate end points in trials; these will inform the development of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-SURROGATE and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-SURROGATE extensions.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

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/ ).

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials

Importance

Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal.

Objective

To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group.

Interventions

The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles.

Results

In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

Hydrochlorothiazide use and risk of keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma: A multi-site population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The association between hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and skin cancer remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether HCTZ is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs).

METHODS

Two new-user, active comparator cohorts were assembled using six Canadian databases. Site-specific hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using standardized morbidity ratio weighted Cox proportional hazard models and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

HCTZ was not associated with an overall increased risk of keratinocyte carcinoma compared with ACEIs or CCBs, although increased risks were observed with longer durations (≥10 years; HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03-1.21) and higher cumulative doses (≥100,000 mg; HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.27-1.76). For melanoma, there was no association with ACEIs, but a 32% increased risk with CCBs (crude incidence rates: 64.2 vs. 58.4 per 100,000 person-years; HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.19-1.46; estimated number needed to harm at 5 years of follow-up: 1,627 patients), with increased risks with longer durations and cumulative doses.

LIMITATIONS

Residual confounding due to the observational design.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased risks of keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma were observed with longer durations of use and higher cumulative doses of HCTZ.

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: the DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol

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.

Top Ten Research Priorities for Psoriasis, Atopic Dermatitis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa: The SkIN Canada Priority Setting Initiative

Background

The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) is a new national skin research network. To shape the research landscape and ensure its value to patient care, research priorities that are important to patients, caregivers, and health care providers must be identified.

Objectives

To identify the Top Ten research priorities for 9 key skin conditions.

Methods

We first surveyed health care providers and researchers to select the top skin conditions for future research within the categories of inflammatory skin disease, skin cancers (other than melanoma), and wound healing. For those selected skin conditions, we conducted scoping reviews to identify previous priority setting exercises. We combined the results of those scoping reviews with a survey of patients, health care providers, and researchers to generate lists of knowledge gaps for each condition. We then surveyed patients and health care providers to create preliminary rankings to prioritize those knowledge gaps. Finally, we conducted workshops of patients and health care providers to create the final Top Ten lists of research priorities for each condition.

Results

Overall, 538 patients, health care providers, and researchers participated in at least one survey or workshop. Psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and hidradenitis suppurativa (inflammatory skin disease); chronic wounds, burns and scars (wound healing); and basal cell, squamous cell and Merkel cell carcinoma (skin cancer) were selected as priority skin conditions. Top Ten lists of knowledge gaps for inflammatory skin conditions encompassed a range of issues relevant to patient care, including questions on pathogenesis, prevention, non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management.

Conclusions

Research priorities derived from patients and health care providers should be used to guide multidisciplinary research networks, funders, and policymakers in Canada and internationally.

[Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extensionDiretrizes para protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão SPIRIT-AI]

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.

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

OBJECTIVES

To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications.

METHODS

We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments.

RESULTS

We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

Follow-up of Patients With Keratinocyte Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Importance

Patients treated for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), collectively called keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), are at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and additional primary cutaneous malignant neoplasms. It is unclear how often patients should be seen for follow-up skin examination after initial treatment of KC.

Objective

To summarize the recommendations and evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for dermatologic follow-up of patients with BCC and invasive SCC.

Evidence Review

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for relevant articles published from January 2010 to March 2022. Search terms included guideline, squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma. National or international guidelines containing recommendations for follow-up frequency after a diagnosis of localized cutaneous KC were included. Quality was assessed using the 6 domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool: (1) scope and purpose; (2) stakeholder development; (3) rigor of development; (4) clarity of presentation; (5) applicability; and (6) editorial independence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) was used to guide study reporting.

Findings

Among the 14 guidelines meeting eligibility criteria, there was little consensus on the appropriate follow-up frequency after initial KC treatment. Overall duration of follow-up ranged from a single posttreatment visit to lifelong surveillance. Most guidelines stratified their recommendations by recurrence risk. For low-risk BCC and guidelines that did not stratify by risk, follow-up recommendations ranged from every 6 to 12 months. For high-risk BCC, 1 guideline suggested follow-up every 3 months, while 4 recommended every 6 months. For low-risk SCC, 5 guidelines recommended annual follow-up; 3 guidelines, every 6 months; and 1 guideline, every 3 months. For high-risk SCC, recommendations included a range of follow-up frequencies, spanning every 3 months (n = 5 guidelines), 4 months (n = 1), 6 months (n = 6), or annually (n = 4). One guideline did not use risk stratification and recommended annual screening. The highest scoring AGREE II domain was "scope and purpose," which assessed the guideline's overall objectives, and the lowest scoring was "applicability," which assessed barriers and facilitators to implementation.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this systemic review highlight variations in follow-up recommendations for patients after initial treatment for KC. Randomized clinical trials are needed to define an optimal follow-up regimen.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Complete 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.

OBJECTIVE

To 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 REVIEW

Using 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.

FINDINGS

The 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 RELEVANCE

This 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.

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

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.

Surrogate endpoints in trials: a call for better reporting

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.

Informing a Canadian Skin Science Trainee Program Based on the State of Trainee Programs Offered by International Academic Societies

BACKGROUND

For dermatology to effectively address the ever-growing medical needs, longstanding communication barriers across investigators working in different research pillars and practicing clinicians must be improved. To address this problem, trainee-specific programs are now evolving to align their educational landscape across basic science, translational and clinical research programs.

OBJECTIVES

To establish a Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) training roadmap for the career and skill development of future clinicians, clinican scientists and basic scientists in Canada. This Working Group aims to strengthen and harmonize collaborations and capacity across the skin research community.

METHODS

The Working Group conducted a search of established international academic societies which offered trainee programs with mandates similar to SkIN Canada. Societies' program items and meetings were evaluated by use of an interview survey and/or the collection of publicly available data. Program logistics, objectives and feedback were assessed for commonalities and factors reported or determined to improve trainee experience.

RESULTS

Through the various factors explored, the Working Group discovered the need for increasing program accessibility, creating opportunities for soft skill development, emphasizing the importance of current challenges, collecting and responding to feedback, and improving knowledge sharing to bridge pillars of skin research.

CONCLUSIONS

Although improvements have been made to trainee education in recent years, a plurality of approaches exist and many of the underlying roadblocks remain unresolved. To establish fundamental clinician-basic scientist collaboration and training efforts, this Working Group highlights important factors to include and consider in building a trainee program and emphasizes the importance of trainee education.

Protocol for the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: SPIRIT-SURROGATE and CONSORT-SURROGATE

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.

Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials

From 2005 to 2015, the publication of noninferiority trials increased by six-fold. Noninferiority trials assess whether a new treatment's efficacy is comparable with that of the standard of care and have several appeals. Noninferiority trials can evaluate for both noninferiority and superiority of a new treatment. In addition, multiple treatment modalities exist, and new treatments may be advantageous for reasons beyond efficacy. Common elements of trial design such as the research question, outcomes, statistical analysis, and interpretation of results differ meaningfully between noninferiority trials and superiority trials. The noninferiority margin, constancy assumption, and assay sensitivity are unique aspects of noninferiority trials. As with all randomized controlled trials, patient engagement in and reporting of noninferiority trials are also important. In this review, we discuss the methodological considerations and limitations of noninferiority trials.

Sociodemographic characteristics and emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations for atopic dermatitis in Ontario: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Some jurisdictions experience sociodemographic disparities in atopic dermatitis care, including emergency department visits, but data from Canada are limited. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of atopic dermatitis in Ontario and to identify sociodemographic factors associated with emergency department visits and hospitalizations for this condition.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients in the Electronic Medical Record Primary Care database linked with administrative health data for Ontario, Canada. We estimated period prevalence and health service utilization for atopic dermatitis from 2005 to 2015. We used multivariable log-binomial regression to calculate adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between local dermatologist density and the proportion of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for atopic dermatitis.

RESULTS

Among 249 984 patients, we identified 7812 with atopic dermatitis (period prevalence 2005-2015: 3.1%). Almost all physician visits for atopic dermatitis were to primary care physicians (> 99%). For every additional dermatologist per 100 000 population, the proportions of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for atopic dermatitis increased by 29% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.57). This relationship occurred in and around Toronto but was not consistent across the province.

INTERPRETATION

In Ontario, higher dermatologist density was not associated with lower emergency department utilization and hospitalization for atopic dermatitis; the association varied in different locales with similar dermatologist densities. Strategies to improve access to care for atopic dermatitis should be tailored to local contexts.

Selective outcome reporting across psychopharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials

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.

Outcomes of skin cancers in pediatric solid organ transplant patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The most frequently reported malignancies after solid organ transplant are cutaneous, but data on the risk in pediatric populations varies across studies.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review including reported features and outcomes of skin cancers in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.

METHODS

EMBASE and MEDLINE were systematically searched (Prospero CRD42020201659).

RESULTS

The review summarizes data from 20 studies on 337 patients, with a median age ranging from 15.0 to 19.5 years as reported in 4 studies, who developed skin malignancies after pediatric solid organ transplantation. Median ages at transplant and skin cancer diagnosis ranged from 1.5 to 17.0 years and 15.3 to 33.5 years, respectively. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was most commonly reported (218 cases), followed by basal cell carcinoma (BCC) (91 cases), melanoma (18 cases), and unspecified keratinocyte carcinomas (2 cases). The median latency period between transplantation and cancer diagnosis ranged from 2.2 to 21.0 years. Overall, 4 studies reported 17 cases of metastasis in total, and recurrence was reported in one case. Six deaths were reported in one study related to SCC and melanoma metastases. The incidence rate of skin cancer after pediatric transplantation per 100 person-years of follow-up was 2.1 based on 5 studies.

CONCLUSION

The most frequent post-transplant malignancy in pediatric organ transplant recipients was SCC.

Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Clinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

For this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, 62%-86%) for the date of first patient enrollment when the comparison time was increased to 30 days (date of first patient enrollment was not reported on EudraCT). For results availability in trial registries, agreement was 122 of 197 RCTs (62%; 95% CI, 55%-69%) for summary data reported in the registry and 91 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for whether a published article with the main results was indexed. Different legal requirements were stated as the main reason for inconsistencies by representatives of clinical trial registries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, for a substantial proportion of registered RCTs, information about key trial characteristics was inconsistent across trial registries, raising concerns about the reliability of the information provided in these registries. Further harmonization across clinical trial registries may be necessary to increase their usefulness.

Incidence and mortality rates of keratinocyte carcinoma from 1998-2017: a population-based study of sex differences in Ontario, Canada

Background:

Keratinocyte carcinoma is the most common malignant disease, but it is not captured in major registries. We aimed to describe differences by sex in the incidence and mortality rates of keratinocyte carcinoma in Ontario, Canada.

Methods:

We conducted a population-based retrospective study of adults residing in Ontario between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2017, using linked health administrative databases. We identified the first diagnosis of keratinocyte carcinoma using a validated algorithm of health insurance claims, and deaths related to keratinocyte carcinoma from death certificates. We calculated the incidence and mortality rates of keratinocyte carcinoma, stratified by sex, age and income quintile. We evaluated trends using the average annual percentage change (AAPC) based on joinpoint regression.

Results:

After decreasing from 1998 to 2003, the incidence rate of keratinocyte carcinoma increased by 30% to 369 per 100 000 males and 345 per 100 000 females in 2017 (AAPC 1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 2.1 from 2003 to 2017). The incidence rate was higher in females younger than 55 years, but higher in males aged 55 years or older. Between 2008 and 2017, the incidence rate rose faster in females than males aged 45–54 years (AAPC 1.2% v. 0.5%, p = 0.01) and 55–64 years (1.2% v. 0.1%, p < 0.01). The incidence was higher in males than females in the higher income quintiles. Between 1998 and 2017, the mortality rate of keratinocyte carcinoma was 1.8 times higher in males than females, on average, and rose 4.8-fold overall (AAPC 8.9%, 95% CI 6.4 to 11.4 in males; 8.0%, 95% CI 5.3–10.8 in females).

Interpretation:

The population burden of keratinocyte carcinoma is growing, and the incidence and mortality rates rose disproportionately among certain sex- and age-specific groups. This warrants further investigation into causal factors and renewed preventive public health measures.

Guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-Path extension

The 2013 SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the minimum content to be included in a clinical trial protocol. Assessment of biospecimens is often required for trial eligibility or as part of an outcome evaluation, and precision molecular approaches are increasingly used in trial design. However, cellular and molecular pathology practices within trials have not been codified or formalised. We developed international consensus reporting guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols (the SPIRIT-Path extension) using an international Delphi process, which assesses candidate items generated from a previous systematic review, followed by an expert consensus meeting. 74 individuals from five continents responded, including clinicians, statisticians, laboratory scientists, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, and regulators. The SPIRIT-Path guidelines recommend 14 additional items (seven extensions to the SPIRIT checklist and seven elaborations) that should be addressed in trial protocols containing pathology content, alongside the SPIRIT 2013 Statement items. SPIRIT-Path recommends that protocols should document the individuals, processes, and standards for all cellular and molecular pathology components of the trial, including all stages of the specimen pathway and any digital pathology methods, with specific consideration of the value of trial data and biological tissues for additional translational studies.

A study protocol for the development of a SPIRIT extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (SPIRIT-ROUTINE)

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.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement

IMPORTANCE

Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete.

OBJECTIVE

As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances.

EVIDENCE

A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders.

FINDINGS

The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

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<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020186702.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

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.