SPIRIT 2013: New guidance for content of clinical trial protocols

The Lancet

Volumn 381, Issue 9861, 2013, Pages 91-92

  Chan, An Wen ^a   Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ^b   Altman, Douglas G ^c   Dickersin, Kay ^d   Moher, David ^b,e  

^a WOMEN S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EDITOR; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; INTERNET; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH ETHICS;

EID: 84872094903     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62160-6     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158 (in press).
2. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 1: MR000031.
3. Chan A-W, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-65.
4. Smyth RM, Kirkham JJ, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, Williamson PR. Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ 2011; 342: c7153.
5. Scharf O, Colevas AD. Adverse event reporting in publications compared with sponsor database for cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3933-38.
6. Lundh A, Krogsboll LT, Gotzsche PC. Access to data in industry-sponsored trials. Lancet 2011; 378: 1995-96.
7. Tetzlaff JM, Chan A-W, Kitchen J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Moher D. Guidelines for randomized controlled trial protocol content: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 43.
8. National Research Council. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
9. Getz KA, Zuckerman R, Cropp AB, Hindle AL, Krauss R, Kaitin K. Measuring the incidence, causes, and repercussions of protocol amendments. Drug Info J 2011; 45: 265-67.
10. Decullier E, Lheritier V, Chapuis F. The activity of French research ethics committees and characteristics of biomedical research protocols involving humans: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Med Ethics 2005; 6: E9.
11. Bollyky TJ, Cockburn IM, Berndt E. Bridging the gap: improving clinical development and the regulatory pathways for health products for neglected diseases. Clin Trials 2010; 7: 719-34.
12. Russ H, Busta S, Riedel A, Zoller G, Jost B. Evaluation of clinical trials by Ethics Committees in Germany: experience of applicants with the review of requests for opinion of the Ethics Committees - results of a survey among members of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA). Ger Med Sci 2009; 7: Doc07.
13. Tetzlaff JM, Moher D, Chan A-W. Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey. Trials 2012; 13: 176.
14. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013; 346: e7586.
15. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 60.