Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39877554›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

SPIRIT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration: recommendations for enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials protocols.

Moreno Ursino, Guillermo Villacampa, Jan Rekowski, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Olga Solovyeva, Deborah Ashby, Jordan Berlin, Oliver Boix, Melanie Calvert, An-Wen Chan and 27 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  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

37 authors.

Moreno UrsinoReCAP/F CRIN, INSERM, 5400, Nancy, France.
Guillermo VillacampaClinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Jan RekowskiClinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Munyaradzi DimairoDivision of Population Health, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Olga SolovyevaClinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Deborah AshbySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Jordan BerlinVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Oliver BoixBayer, Berlin, Germany.
Melanie CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
An-Wen ChanDepartment of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Courtney H CoschiCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Thomas R Jeffry EvansInstitute of Cancer Sciences, CR-UK Beatson Institute, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Elizabeth Garrett-MayerCenter for Research and Analytics, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Robert M GolubDepartment of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Christina GuoThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Kathryn S HaywardDepartments of Physiotherapy and Medicine, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sally HopewellOxford Clinical Research Unit, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John D IsaacsTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
S Percy IvyInvestigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Thomas JakiMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Olga KholmanskikhFederal Agency for Medicines and Health Products, Brussels, Belgium.
Andrew KightleyPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) Lead, Lichfield, UK.
Shing LeeColumbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA.
Rong LiuRegeneron, New York, NY, USA.
Adrian ManderCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Lynley V MarshallThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
James MatchamStrategic Consulting, Cytel (Australia), Perth, WA, Australia.
Dhrusti PatelClinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Richard PeckDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Khadija Rerhou RantellMedicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK.
Dawn P RichardsClinical Trials Ontario, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mahtab RouhifardClinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Lesley SeymourCanadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Yoshiya TanakaFirst Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Christopher J WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Johann de BonoThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Christina YapClinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transparent and accurate reporting in early phase dose-finding (EPDF) clinical trials is crucial for informing subsequent larger trials. The SPIRIT statement, designed for trial protocol content, does not adequately cover the distinctive features of EPDF trials. Recent findings indicate that the protocol contents in past EPDF trials frequently lacked completeness and clarity. To address this gap, the international consensus-driven SPIRIT-DEFINE checklist was developed through a robust methodological framework for guideline development, with the aim to improve completeness and clarity in EPDF trial protocols. The checklist builds on the SPIRIT statement, adding 17 new items and modifying 15 existing ones.The SPIRIT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration (E&E) document provides comprehensive information to enhance understanding and usability of the SPIRIT-DEFINE checklist when writing an EPDF trial protocol. Each new or modified checklist item is accompanied by a detailed description, its rationale with supportive evidence, and examples of good reporting curated from EPDF trial protocols covering a range of therapeutic areas and interventions. We recommend utilising this paper alongside the SPIRIT statement, and any relevant extensions, to enhance the development and review of EPDF trial protocols.By facilitating adoption of the SPIRIT-DEFINE statement for EPDF trials, this E&E document can promote enhancement of methodological rigour, patient safety, transparency, and facilitate the generation of high-quality, reproducible evidence that will strengthen the foundation of early phase research and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Funding: This work is a further extension of the SPIRIT-DEFINE study, which obtained no external funding. The principal investigator (CY) used internal staff resources, together with additional resources from external partners, to conduct this study. The SPIRIT-DEFINE study is a component of the DEFINE project, which also developed the MRC/NIHR funded CONSORT-DEFINE guidance. ICR-CTSU receives programmatic infrastructure funding from Cancer Research UK (C1491/A25351; CTUQQR-Dec22/100004), which has contributed to accelerating the advancement and successful completion of this work.

Indexed as

Dose escalation/de-escalationDose-findingEarly phase trialsPhase IProtocol guidanceSPIRITSPIRIT-DEFINE

Identifiers

PMID39877554
PMCPMC11773215

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.