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 ).

Are Published Cancer Care Trial Protocols With Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Concordant With SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018? A Scoping Review on Published Trial Protocols Between 2019 and 2022

BACKGROUND

The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was created to guide the design and reporting of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical trial protocols. This study aims to investigate the extent of concordance with this guideline in the relevant field of cancer care research.

METHODS

A scoping review of TCM cancer trial protocols published in English and Chinese since January 2019 was conducted. Five major academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched. Concordance with the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was assessed by descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-three TCM cancer care trial protocols were identified, comprising 23 acupuncture, 26 Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and 4 Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) interventions. The majority of the checklist items had a low rate of concordance, especially in the reporting of quality control and safety, dosage, TCM diagnostic patterns, possible interactions between Western Medicine and TCM interventions, and TCM-related outcome assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 guideline was established through extensive Delphi consultation, there are low rates of concordance between published TCM cancer care clinical trial protocols with the guideline. Further research is necessary to understand the low rate of concordance and how scientific rigors of reporting can be improved in TCM cancer care research.

Assessing the reporting quality of adult neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements

Background

Comprehensive and transparent reporting of clinical trial activity is important. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements define the items to be reported in clinical trial protocols and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The aim of this methodological review was to assess the reporting quality of adult neuro-oncology trial protocols and trial result articles.

Methods

Adult primary and secondary brain tumor phase 3 trial protocols and result articles published after the introduction of the SPIRIT 2013 statement, were identified through searches of 4 electronic bibliographic databases. Following extraction of baseline demographic data, the reporting quality of independently included trial protocols and result articles was assessed against the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements respectively. The CONSORT-A checklist, an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement, was used to specifically assess the abstract accompanying the trial results article. Percentage adherence (standard deviation [SD]) was calculated for each article.

Results

Seven trial protocols, and 36 trial result articles were included. Mean adherence of trial protocols to the SPIRIT statement was 79.4% (SD: 0.11). Mean adherence of trial abstracts to CONSORT-A was 75.3% (SD: 0.12) and trial result articles to CONSORT was 74.5% (SD: 0.10).

Conclusion

The reporting quality of adult neuro-oncology trial protocols and trial result articles requires improvement to ensure comprehensive and transparent communication of planned neuro-oncology clinical trials and results within the literature. Raising awareness by clinical triallists and implementing mandatory evidence of proof of adherence by journals should improve reporting quality.

Assessing the reporting quality of early phase dose-finding trial protocols: a methodological review

Background

The paradigm of early phase dose-finding trials has evolved in recent years. Innovative dose-finding designs and protocols which combine phases I and II are becoming more popular in health research. However, the quality of these trial protocols is unknown due to a lack of specific reporting guidelines. Here, we evaluated the reporting quality of dose-finding trial protocols.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of oncology and non-oncology early phase dose-finding trial protocols posted on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2017-2023. A checklist of items comprising: 1) the original 33-items from the SPIRIT 2013 Statement and 2) additional items unique to dose-finding trials were used to assess reporting quality. The primary endpoint was the overall proportion of adequately reported items. This study was registered with PROSPERO (no: CRD42022314572).

Finding

A total of 106 trial protocols were included in the study with the rule-based 3 + 3 being the most used trial design (39.6%). Eleven model-based and model-assisted designs were identified in oncology trials only (11/58, 19.0%). The overall proportion of adequately reported items was 65.1% (95%CI: 63.9-66.3%). However, the reporting quality of each individual item varied substantially (range 9.4%-100%). Oncology study protocols showed lower reporting quality than non-oncology. In the multivariable analysis, trials with larger sample sizes and industry funding were associated with higher proportions of adequately reported items (all p-values <0.05).

Interpretation

The overall reporting quality of early phase dose-finding trial protocols is suboptimal (65.1%). There is a need for improved completeness and transparency in early phase dose-finding trial protocols to facilitate rigorous trial conduct, reproducibility and external review.

Funding

None.

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.

Evaluating the online impact of reporting guidelines for randomised trial reports and protocols: a cross-sectional web-based data analysis of CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives

Reporting guidelines are tools to help improve the transparency, completeness, and clarity of published articles in health research. Specifically, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statements provide evidence-based guidance on what to include in randomised trial articles and protocols to guarantee the efficacy of interventions. These guidelines are subsequently described and discussed in journal articles and used to produce checklists. Determining the online impact (i.e., number and type of links received) of these articles can provide insights into the dissemination of reporting guidelines in broader environments (web-at-large) than simply that of the scientific publications that cite them. To address the technical limitations of link analysis, here the Debug-Validate-Access-Find (DVAF) method is designed and implemented to measure different facets of the guidelines' online impact. A total of 65 articles related to 38 reporting guidelines are taken as a baseline, providing 240,128 URL citations, which are then refined, analysed, and categorised using the DVAF method. A total of 15,582 links to journal articles related to the CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives were identified. CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 were the reporting guidelines that received most links (URL citations) from other online objects (5328 and 2190, respectively). Overall, the online impact obtained is scattered (URL citations are received by different article URL IDs, mainly from link-based DOIs), narrow (limited number of linking domain names, half of articles are linked from fewer than 29 domain names), concentrated (links come from just a few academic publishers, around 60% from publishers), non-reputed (84% of links come from dubious websites and fake domain names) and highly decayed (89% of linking domain names were not accessible at the time of the analysis). In light of these results, it is concluded that the online impact of these guidelines could be improved, and a set of recommendations are proposed to this end.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04542-z.

The SPIRIT Checklist-lessons from the experience of SPIRIT protocol editors

Crystal clear RCT protocols are of paramount importance. The reader needs to easily understand the trial methodology and know what is pre-planned. They need to know there are procedures in place if there are, for instance, protocol breaches and protocol amendments are required, there is loss to follow-up and missing data, and how solicited and spontaneous reported adverse events are dealt with. This plan is important for the trial and for the results that will be published when the data is analysed. After all, individuals have consented to participate in these trials, and their time and their well-being matter. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) provides guidance to structure RCT protocols and ensures all essential information is included. But sadly, not all trialists follow the guidance, and sometimes, the information is misunderstood. Using experience peer-reviewing for Trials over the last 2 years, we have prepared information to assist authors, peer reviewers, editors, and other current and future SPIRIT protocol editors to use the SPIRIT guidance and understand its importance.

Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?

Background

A systematic review of the evidence should be undertaken to support the justification for undertaking a clinical trial. The aim of this study was to examine whether reports of orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were also explored.

Material and methods

Orthodontic RCTs published between 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020 in seven orthodontic journals were identified. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were assessed for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

Results

301 RCTs fulfilling the eligibility criteria were assessed. 220 SRs were available of which 74.5% (N = 164) were cited, and 24.5% (N = 56) were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. When a SR was not included in the introduction or no SR was available within 12 months of trial commencement, interventional studies were commonly cited. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the possibility of inclusion of a SR in the introduction (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

A quarter of orthodontic RCTs (24.5%) included in this study did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. To reduce research waste and optimal usage of resources, researchers should identify or conduct a systematic review of the evidence to support the rationale and justification of the trial.

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.

Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-aggregation

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology-related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE-GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation - Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta-aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full-text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology-related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology-related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology-related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.

Citation of prior systematic reviews in reports of randomized controlled trials published in dental speciality journals

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which reports of dental Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were explored.

METHODS

An electronic database search was undertaken to identify dental RCTs published between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2019. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were calculated for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

RESULTS

682 RCTs were analysed. 312 SRs were available of which 62.5 % were cited and 37.5 % were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. An association between inclusion of SR and trial registration (P = 0.046) was detected. For the inclusion of a SR, authors based in Asia or other had lower odds than those based in Europe (OR: 0.53; 95 % CI:0.34,0.82; p = 0.005). Every unit increase in journal impact factor increased the odds of SR inclusion (OR: 1.23; 95 %: 1.06, 1.43; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively high proportion of dental RCTs (37.5 %) did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. Trials conducted by a corresponding author based in Europe and published in journals with an increasing impact factor were also more likely to cite a SR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Further progress is required to minimise research waste and ensure resources are channelled towards clinically useful trials which have an appropriate rationale and justification.

Assessment of Patient Experiences with Respimat® in Everyday Clinical Practice

Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease requiring maintenance therapy. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy report, bronchodilation with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), administered via inhalers, is currently the mainstay of COPD treatment. Combined LAMA/LABA therapies have been shown to improve patient health status, lung function and breathlessness. Here, we wanted to report patient satisfaction with the Respimat^® Soft Mist™ inhaler (SMI).

Methods

This was a pooled analysis of SPIRIT^® (NCT02675517) and OTIVACTO^® (NCT02719639), two open-label, single-arm, non-interventional studies of physical function in patients with COPD. Patients were treated with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg for approximately 6 weeks via the SMI. SPIRIT was conducted in Germany; OTIVACTO was conducted in nine European countries. The primary endpoints have been reported previously. Here, we assess patient satisfaction with inhalation and handling, and patient adherence to treatment with the tiotropium/olodaterol SMI in patients with COPD. These were assessed through self-reported questionnaires and physician general assessments.

Results

Baseline data were collected from 9180 patients from the SPIRIT and OTIVACTO studies. The majority of patients were GOLD group A (25.59%) or B (46.12%). After 6 weeks of treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol, 85.78% of patients were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with inhaling from the device, and 84.33% of patients were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the handling of the inhaler. Treating physicians reported patient adherence as ‘high’ during the study, with 98.57% of patients regularly using the tiotropium/olodaterol SMI. Furthermore, 95.45% of patients expressed a willingness to continue using the tiotropium/olodaterol SMI at the end of the observation period.

Conclusion

In this study, over 9000 patients reported satisfaction with respect to inhalation and handling of the Respimat SMI, and patient adherence was high.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02675517 (SPIRIT) and NCT02719639 (OTIVACTO).

Inhalation devices are the main method of delivering treatments to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are many devices available, which can lead to confusion and poor inhaler technique. To help doctors decide which device to give to their patients, they consider whether the patient would be happy with the device and whether they can use it correctly. This study pooled data from two large real-life studies to assess patient satisfaction with the Respimat^® Soft Mist™ inhaler. Patients assessed their satisfaction and willingness to continue using the device at the end of the study period.

The pooled data included over 9000 patients on a range of baseline therapies. After 6 weeks of using the trial device, over 85% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with inhaling from the device, and over 84% were satisfied with the handling of the device. Physicians reported that nearly 99% of patients regularly used their device. Also, over 95% of the patient population reported that they continued using the inhaler at the end of the study.

Overall, these results support the view that many patients with COPD across a wide range of severities and baseline characteristics demonstrated satisfaction with the Respimat^® Soft Mist™ inhaler to control their disease.

Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development.

METHODS

We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items.

RESULTS

In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

Randomization procedures for multicomponent behavioral intervention factorial trials in the multiphase optimization strategy framework: challenges and recommendations

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an increasingly popular framework to prepare, optimize, and evaluate multicomponent behavioral health interventions. Within this framework, it is common to use a factorial trial to assemble an optimized multicomponent intervention by simultaneously testing several intervention components. With the possibility of a large number of conditions (unique combinations of components) and a goal to balance conditions on both sample size (for statistical efficiency) and baseline covariates (for internal validity), such trials face additional randomization challenges compared to the standard two-arm trial. The purpose of the current paper is to compare and contrast potential randomization methods for factorial trials in the context of MOST and to provide guidance for the reporting of those methods. We describe the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of several randomization methods in the context of factorial trials. We then provide examples to examine current practice in the MOST-related literature and provide recommendations for reporting of randomization. We identify two key randomization decisions for MOST-related factorial trials: (i) whether to randomize to components or conditions and (ii) whether to use restricted randomization techniques, such as stratification, permuted blocks, and minimization. We also provide a checklist to assist researchers in ensuring complete reporting of randomization methods used. As more investigators use factorial trials within the MOST framework for assembling optimized multicomponent behavioral interventions, appropriate implementation and rigorous reporting of randomization procedures will be essential for ensuring the efficiency and validity of the results.

Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT)

Background

Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines.

Methods

The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities.

Discussion

InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials with Traditional Chinese Medicine 2018: Recommendations, Explanation and Elaboration (SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018)

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is one of the oldest systems of medicine. More and more attention has been paid to TCM application, but the variable quality of clinical trials with TCM impedes its widespread acceptance. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement has established guidelines for designing clinical trials to ensure that the trial results are accurate and reliable. However, there are difficulties when applying SPIRIT 2013 Statement to trials with TCM, due to the unique theory and the characteristic of TCM intervention. An Extension to the original SPIRIT was developed to ensure the quality of trial design with TCM. As Chinese herbal formulae, acupuncture and moxibustion are common and representative interventions in TCM practice, the executive working group determined that the SPIRIT-TCM Extension focus on these three interventions. Extension was developed through initiation, 3 rounds of Delphi consensus survey, and finalizing expert meeting. Seven items from the SPIRIT 2013 Statement were modified, namely, "title", "background and rationale", "objectives", "eligibility criteria", "interventions", "outcomes", and "data collection methods". The Extension includes the introduction of the concept of TCM pattern and 3 major TCM interventions, with examples and explanations. The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 provides suggestion for investigators in designing high quality TCM clinical trials. It is expected that wide dissemination and application of this extension ensure continuous improvement of TCM trial quality throughout the world.

A quality analysis of clinical anaesthesia study protocols from the Chinese clinical trials registry according to the SPIRIT statement

Objective

To learn about the overall quality of clinical anaesthesia study protocols from the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry and to discuss the way to improve study protocol quality.

Methods

We defined completeness of each sub-item in SPIRIT as N/A (not applicable) or with a score of 0, 1, or 2. For each protocol, we calculated the proportion of adequately reported items (score = 2 and N/A) and unreported items (score = 0). Protocol quality was determined according to the proportion of reported items, with values >50% indicating high quality. Protocol quality was determined according to the proportion of reported items. For each sub-item in SPIRIT, we calculated the adequately reported rate (percentage of all protocols with score 2 and NA on one sub-item) as well as the unreported rate (percentage of all protocols with score 0 on one sub-item).

Results

Total 126 study protocols were available for assessment. Among these, 88.1% were assessed as being of low quality. By comparison, the percentage of low-quality protocols was 88.9% after the publication of the SPIRIT statement. Among the 51 SPIRIT sub-items, 18 sub-items had an unreported rate above 90% while 16 had a higher adequately reported rate than an unreported rate.

Conclusions

The overall quality of clinical anaesthesia study protocols registered in the ChiCTR was poor. A mandatory protocol upload and self-check based on the SPIRIT statement during the trial registration process may improve protocol quality in the future.

A content analysis of stroke physical therapy intervention using stroke physiotherapy intervention recording tool

[Purpose] Physical therapy for recovery of function in people with stroke is known to be effective, but which type of physical therapy intervention is most effective is uncertain because a concrete and detailed record of interventions is done. This study aimed to record, analyze, and describe the content of physical therapy interventions for recovery of function after stroke using stroke physiotherapy intervention recording tool (SPIRIT). [Subjects and Methods] A convenience sample of 23 physical therapists from a rehabilitation hospital in Chung-nam recorded the interventions for 73 patients with stroke who were treated for 30 minutes in 670 treatment sessions. Treatment session contents were recorded using SPIRIT. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the interventions accurately and to investigate the differences according to time since stroke. [Results] Facilitation techniques were the most frequently used interventions (n=1,342, 35.1%), followed by practice (n=1,056, 27.6%), and exercise (n=748, 19.6%) in the physical therapists' clinical practice. [Conclusion] This pattern shows that physical therapists were focused on functional activity. Organizing or teaching patient activities for independent practice interventions (n=286, 7.5%) were used to encourage patient activity and independence outside the treatment sessions. Interventions according to time since stroke were not significantly different.

Clinical Outcomes of Virologically-Suppressed Patients with Pre-existing HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations Switching to Rilpivirine/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in the SPIRIT Study

OBJECTIVES

Antiretroviral regimen switching may be considered for HIV-1-infected, virologically-suppressed patients to enable treatment simplification or improve tolerability, but should be guided by knowledge of pre-existing drug resistance. The current study examined the impact of pre-existing drug resistance mutations on virologic outcomes among virologically-suppressed patients switching to Rilpivirine (RPV)/emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF).

METHODS

SPIRIT was a phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching to RPV/FTC/TDF in virologically-suppressed HIV-1-infected patients. Pre-existing drug resistance at baseline was determined by proviral DNA genotyping for 51 RPV/FTC/TDF-treated patients with known mutations by historical RNA genotype and matched controls and compared with clinical outcome at Week 48.

RESULTS

Drug resistance mutations in protease or reverse transcriptase were detected in 62.7% of patients by historical RNA genotype and in 68.6% by proviral DNA genotyping at baseline. Proviral DNA sequencing detected 89% of occurrences of NRTI and NNRTI resistance-associated mutations reported by historical genotype. Mutations potentially affecting RPV activity, including E138A/G/K/Q, Y181C, and H221Y, were detected in isolates from 11 patients by one or both assays. None of the patients with single mutants had virologic failure through Week 48. One patient with pre-existing Y181Y/C and M184I by proviral DNA genotyping experienced virologic failure. Nineteen patients with K103N present by historical genotype were confirmed by proviral DNA sequencing and 18/19 remained virologically-suppressed.

DISCUSSION

Virologic success rates were high among virologically-suppressed patients with pre-existing NRTI and NNRTI resistance-associated mutations who switched to RPV/FTC/TDF in the SPIRIT study. While plasma RNA genotyping remains preferred, proviral DNA genotyping may provide additional value in virologically-suppressed patients for whom historical resistance data are unavailable.

Analyzing methods for path mining with applications in metabolomics

Metabolomics is one of the key approaches of systems biology that consists of studying biochemical networks having a set of metabolites, enzymes, reactions and their interactions. As biological networks are very complex in nature, proper techniques and models need to be chosen for their better understanding and interpretation. One of the useful strategies in this regard is using path mining strategies and graph-theoretical approaches that help in building hypothetical models and perform quantitative analysis. Furthermore, they also contribute to analyzing topological parameters in metabolome networks. Path mining techniques can be based on grammars, keys, patterns and indexing. Moreover, they can also be used for modeling metabolome networks, finding structural similarities between metabolites, in-silico metabolic engineering, shortest path estimation and for various graph-based analysis. In this manuscript, we have highlighted some core and applied areas of path-mining for modeling and analysis of metabolic networks.