ArticleBMJ open2022
Reporting quality of clinical trial protocols: a repeated cross-sectional study about the Adherence to SPIrit Recommendations in Switzerland, CAnada and GErmany (ASPIRE-SCAGE).
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nonregistration, Discontinuation, and Nonpublication of Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Dissemination planning in exercise oncology trials-a systematic review of trial protocols.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Pooled 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
- SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomized trials.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- [Interpretation and Examples: Key Updates in SPIRIT 2025 Statement].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Reporting guidelines for protocols of randomised controlled trials of implantable neurostimulation devices: the SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Article
- Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesComprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist.
designRepeated cross sectional study.
settingSwiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs).
participantsRCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reported
resultsThe median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%-79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%-82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%-72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%-83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%-80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship.
conclusionsIn 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve.
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.