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

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

[1]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials. , 2006, JAMA.

[2]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  David Moher,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials , 2013, BMJ.

[4]  I. Sim,et al.  Clinical trial registration: transparency is the watchword , 2006, The Lancet.

[5]  David Coultas,et al.  Ethical considerations in the interpretation and communication of clinical trial results. , 2007, Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society.

[6]  D. Moher,et al.  Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[7]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Thomas Kaiser,et al.  Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  J. D. Miller,et al.  Registering clinical trial results: the next step. , 2010, JAMA.

[10]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[11]  Rachael B. Zuckerman,et al.  Measuring the Incidence, Causes, and Repercussions of Protocol Amendments , 2011 .

[12]  Kent Johnson,et al.  The power of the protocol , 2002, The Lancet.

[13]  David Moher,et al.  Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[14]  David Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  D. Moher,et al.  Protocols, probity, and publication , 2009, The Lancet.

[17]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  A. Colevas,et al.  Adverse event reporting in publications compared with sponsor database for cancer clinical trials. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  Karmela Krleža-Jerić,et al.  Reporting of Methodologic Information on Trial Registries for Quality Assessment: A Study of Trial Records Retrieved from the WHO Search Portal , 2010, PloS one.

[21]  A. Chan.  Out of sight but not out of mind: how to search for unpublished clinical trial evidence , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Lead editorial: Trials – using the opportunities of electronic publishing to improve the reporting of randomised trials , 2006, Trials.

[23]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  J. Habbema,et al.  Subgroup Analysis and Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Clinical Trials of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review , 2005, Neurosurgery.

[25]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Access to data in industry-sponsored trials , 2011, The Lancet.

[26]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[27]  Ida Sim,et al.  Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1) , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

[30]  E. Turner,et al.  A Taxpayer-Funded Clinical Trials Registry and Results Database , 2004, PLoS medicine.

[31]  David Moher,et al.  The Good Clinical Practice guideline: a bronze standard for clinical research , 2005, The Lancet.

[32]  S. Evans,et al.  Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet , 2008, The Lancet.

[33]  J. Siegel.  Editorial review of protocols for clinical trials. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  D. Moher,et al.  Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey , 2012, Trials.

[35]  D G Altman,et al.  Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  Drummond Rennie,et al.  Trial registration: a great idea switches from ignored to irresistible. , 2004, JAMA.