Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38051535›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement.

Brennan C Kahan, Sophie S Hall, Elaine M Beller, Megan Birchenall, Diana Elbourne, Edmund Juszczak, Paul Little, John Fletcher, Robert M Golub, Beatriz Goulao and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. What is the best nutritional strategy for moderate to late preterm infants?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Brennan C KahanMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Sophie S HallNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Elaine M BellerInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Robina, Australia.
Megan BirchenallNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Diana ElbourneLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Edmund JuszczakNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
John FletcherThe BMJ, London, United Kingdom.
Robert M GolubDepartment of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Beatriz GoulaoHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Sally HopewellOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nazrul IslamPrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre For Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
An-Wen ChanWomen's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Alan A MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBBond University · AULondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNorthwestern University · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBWestern University · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/09Medical Research Council MR/V020803/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials. Evidence Review: The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist. Findings: This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch DesignClinical ProtocolsConsensusHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38051535
PMCPMC7617238
OpenAlexW4389326950

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.