ArticleSystematic reviews2012
Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Concordance with SPIRIT-AI guidelines in reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols investigating artificial intelligence in oncology: a systematic review.The oncologist · 2025Pooled it
- Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle damage markers in adults: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Cardiac implant registries 2006-2016: a systematic review and summary of global experiences.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Design characteristic of randomised controlled trials for geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: selection of outcomes and sample size calculation.Eye (London, England) · 2015Pooled it
- SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.Annals of internal medicine · 2013 · on this mapGuideline
- Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication Generative Language Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Trial
- Generative Language Intervention for Young Children With Down Syndrome Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Mobile Health Intervention (Multi-Aid-Package) in Medication Adherence and Treatment Outcomes Among Patients With Hypertension in a Low- to Middle-Income Country: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Beyond demographic tables: integrating data quality in clinical trial representativeness.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Concordance with CONSORT-AI guidelines in reporting of randomised controlled trials investigating artificial intelligence in oncology: a systematic review.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- How do trial teams plan for retention during the design stage of the trial? A scoping review protocol.Trials · 2022Article
- Article
- ASAS-NANP symposium: mathematical modeling in animal nutrition: limitations and potential next steps for modeling and modelers in the animal sciences.Journal of animal science · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelled
backgroundAll randomized clinical trials (RCTs) require a protocol; however, numerous studies have highlighted protocol deficiencies. Reporting guidelines may improve the content of research reports and, if developed using robust methods, may increase the utility of reports to stakeholders. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review RCT protocol guidelines, to assess their characteristics and methods of development, and to compare recommendations.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of indexed literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to September 2010; reference lists; related article features; forward citation searching) and a targeted search of supplementary sources, including a survey of major trial funding agencies in six countries. Records were eligible if they described a content guideline in English or French relevant to RCT protocols. Guidelines were excluded if they specified content for protocols for trials of specific procedures or conditions or were intended to assess trial quality. We extracted guideline characteristics and methods. Content was mapped for a subset of guidelines that described development methods or had institutional endorsement.
resultsForty guidelines published in journals, books and institutional reports were included in the review; seven were specific to RCT protocols. Only eight (20%) described development methods which included informal consensus methods, pilot testing and formal validation; no guideline described all of these methods. No guideline described formal consensus methods or a systematic retrieval of empirical evidence to inform its development. The guidelines included a median of 23 concepts per guideline (interquartile range (IQR) = 14 to 34; range = 7 to 109). Among the subset of guidelines (n = 23) for which content was mapped, approximately 380 concepts were explicitly addressed (median concepts per guideline IQR = 31 (24,80); range = 16 to 150); most concepts were addressed in a minority of guidelines.
conclusionsExisting guidelines for RCT protocol content varied substantially in their recommendations. Few reports described the methods of guideline development, limiting comparisons of guideline validity. Given the importance of protocols to diverse stakeholders, we believe a systematically developed, evidence-informed guideline for clinical trial protocols is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.