Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782872›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Guidance for reporting outcomes in clinical trials: scoping review protocol.

Nancy J Butcher, Emma J Mew, Leena Saeed, Andrea Monsour, Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow, An-Wen Chan, David Moher, Martin Offringa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nancy J ButcherChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5152-0108
Emma J MewChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5667-1394
Leena SaeedChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrea MonsourChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3870-3804
Alyssandra Chee-A-TowChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0220-2717
An-Wen ChanDepartment of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Martin OffringaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4402-5299

Funding

CIHR 148953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationClinical Trials as TopicConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicEndpoint DeterminationHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicTreatment OutcomeConsort Reporting GuidelineEndpointOutcomeSpirit Reporting GuidelineTrialTrial Protocols

Identifiers

PMID30782872
PMCPMC6377514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.