Cited by 81Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

SPIRIT extension and elaboration for n-of-1 trials: SPENT 2019 checklist

Open access
Porcino, Antony J, Shamseer, Larissa, Chan, An-Wen, Kravitz, Richard L, Orkin, Aaron, Punja, Salima, Ravaud, Philippe, Schmid, Christopher H +1 more·2020·BMJ

Abstract

Randomised clinical trials are the preferred method for establishing average intervention effects for groups. Using key methodological elements of these trials, n-of-1 trials provide rigorous evidence of intervention effects for individuals. N-of-1 trials are particularly useful for situations where randomised clinical trials are not always feasible or appropriate, such as for individuals with rare diseases, comorbid conditions, or using concurrent treatments. N-of-1 trials enhance precision when intervention effects are heterogeneous between individuals. Here, we describe an extension to the SPIRIT (standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials) guideline, SPENT (SPIRIT extension for n-of-1 trials), to improve the completeness and transparency of n-of-1 trial protocols. SPENT is also aligned with the CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) extension for n-of-1 trials (CENT). The guideline development group followed the development strategy for reporting guidelines endorsed by the EQUATOR Network. SPENT began with a systematic review for n-of-1 protocol recommendations. After analysis to identify possible SPENT items, a three round Delphi process was implemented, with international participation involving researchers, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. This was followed by in-person meetings and email discussion of the SPENT group to achieve consensus. SPENT has 14 extension items specific to n-of-1 trials, a checklist for n-of-1 trial protocol abstracts, and additional guidance for eight SPIRIT items where trialists could encounter issues specific to n-of-1 trials. This paper describes the rationale and development process, and provides examples and explanations for each SPENT checklist item.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.m122

Cites

56 of 56 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?

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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Schmid CH, Duan MSPHN. DEcIDE Methods Centre N-of-1 Guidance Panel. Chapter 4: Statistical design and analytic considerations for n-of-1 trials. In: Kravitz RL, Duan MSPHN, eds. Design and implementation of N-of-1 trials: a user's guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014:33-53.
  2. Punja S, Eslick I, Duan MSPHN, Vohra S. DEcIDE Methods Centre N-of- 1 Guidance Panel. Chapter 2: An ethical framework for n-of-1 trials: clinical care, quality improvement, or human subjects research? In: Kravitz RL, Duan MSPHN, eds. Design and implementation of n-of-1 trials: a user's guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014:13-22.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Porcino, A. J., Shamseer, L., Chan, A.-W., Kravitz, R. L., Orkin, A., Punja, S., Ravaud, P., Schmid, C. H., & Vohra, S.
Affiliations
  • BC Cancer Agency (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Vohra, Sunita
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-02-27
Volume
368
Pages
m122
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3007287716
Cited by
81
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4
FWCI
7.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
N-of-1 trials, reporting guidelines, protocol transparency, rare diseases, patient involvement in guideline development
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Consensus Statements as Topic, Consensus Development Conferences as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees, 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