Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30841935›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

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

Nancy J Butcher, Andrea Monsour, Emma J Mew, Peter Szatmari, Agostino Pierro, Lauren E Kelly, Mufiza Farid-Kapadia, Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow, Leena Saeed, Suneeta Monga and 9 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors.

Nancy J ButcherChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada. nancy.butcher@sickkids.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5152-0108
Andrea MonsourChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3870-3804
Emma J MewChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5667-1394
Peter SzatmariDepartment of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Agostino PierroDivision of General and Thoracic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Lauren E KellyDepartment of Pediatrics and Child Health, Clinical Trials Platform, George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7567-0816
Mufiza Farid-KapadiaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Alyssandra Chee-A-TowChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Leena SaeedChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Suneeta MongaDepartment of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Wendy UngarChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Caroline B TerweeAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-2826
Sunita VohraThe Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6210-7933
Dean FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3389-2485
Lisa M AskieNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
An-Wen ChanInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206
Martin OffringaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4402-5299

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research #148953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInadequate 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.

methodsThe 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.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueEndpoint DeterminationHumansResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicTreatment OutcomeCONSORTEndpointOutcomeReporting guidelineSPIRITTrialTrial protocol

Identifiers

PMID30841935
PMCPMC6404348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.