Cited by 21Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsClinical practice guidelines implementation

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

Open access
Nejstgaard, Camilla H., Boutron, Isabelle, Chan, An-Wen, Chow, Ryan, Hopewell, Sally, Masalkhi, Mouayad, Moher, David, Schulz, Kenneth F. +3 more·2023·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications. METHODS: We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments. RESULTS: We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.003

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A scoping review of the literature was conducted to identify published comments suggesting modifications and additions or reflecting on strengths and challenges of CONSORT 2010.

    “we first conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify published comments suggesting modifications and additions or reflecting on strengths and challenges of CONSORT 2010, the findings of which have been published separately [22].”
  • The SPIRIT 2025 update included a scoping review of published comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010.

    “conducted a scoping review of published comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010,18”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: up- dated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.
  2. Nejstgaard CH, Boutron I, Chan A-W, Hopewell S, Moher D, Schulz KF, et al. The evolving context of reporting randomised trials. A scoping review of comments on SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010. Available from OSF. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YB98V. · DOI
  3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommenda- tions for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available at https://www.icmje.org/icmje- recommendations.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2023.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nejstgaard, C. H., Boutron, I., Chan, A.-W., Chow, R., Hopewell, S., Masalkhi, M., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Shlobin, N. A., Østengaard, L., & Hróbjartsson, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Nejstgaard, Camilla H.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
155
Pages
48-63
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4317214279
Cited by
21
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/W020483/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
CONSORT 2010, reporting guidelines, trial protocol reporting, trial reporting, participant flow, blinding, missing data, conflicts of interest, funding disclosure, data sharing, patient and public involvement, peer review, peer reviewers
MeSH terms
Humans, Reference Standards, Research Design, Writing

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