Cited by 288Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

Open access
Butcher, Nancy J., Monsour, Andrea, Mew, Emma J., Chan, An-Wen, Moher, David, Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Terwee, Caroline B., Chee-A-Tow, Alyssandra +18 more·2022·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2022.21243

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The update process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion of three items, merger of two items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines.

    “The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines.”
  • The SPIRIT 2025 update identified relevant SPIRIT or CONSORT extensions and related guidelines.

    “identified relevant SPIRIT or CONSORT extensions and related guidelines (eg,21 22 23 24)”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 288

Authors
Butcher, N. J., Monsour, A., Mew, E. J., Chan, A.-W., Moher, D., Mayo-Wilson, E., Terwee, C. B., Chee-A-Tow, A., Baba, A., Gavin, F., Grimshaw, J. M., Kelly, L. E., Saeed, L., Thabane, L., Askie, L., Smith, M., Farid-Kapadia, M., Williamson, P. R., Szatmari, P., Tugwell, P., Golub, R. M., Monga, S., Vohra, S., Marlin, S., Ungar, W. J., & Offringa, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • public panel member, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • patient panel member, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Butcher, Nancy J.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2022-12-20
Volume
328
Issue
23
Pages
2345
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4312114541
Cited by
288
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 1
FWCI
35.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Medical Research Council (MR/S014357/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
outcome reporting, outcome selection, outcome measurement, outcome analysis, primary and secondary outcomes, outcome definitions, outcome data collection, outcome reporting standards, research transparency, reproducibility, reporting guidelines, Delphi consensus, EQUATOR Network
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Consensus, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review