Access to unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomised trials
Open accessAbstract
Background: Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request. Methods: We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times. Results: Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%. Conclusions: Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Protocols and statistical analysis plans play a central role in enhancing the transparency, reproducibility, and interpretation of trial results.
“Given the central role of protocols and statistical analysis plans in enhancing the transparency, reproducibility, and interpretation of trial results, there is a strong ethical and scientific rationale for these key documents to be publicly available.74 75 76 77 78”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [76]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 13
- Authors
- Campbell, D., McDonald, C., Cro, S., Jairath, V., & Kahan, B. C.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kahan, Brennan C.
- Venue
- Trials
- Published
- 2022-08-17
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 674-674
- ISSN
- 1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9387046
- OpenAlex
- W4292265663
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300593)
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/07)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Keywords
- statistical analysis plan, randomised trials, research transparency, publication bias, research ethics applications
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trial Protocols as Topic, Documentation, Humans, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Electronic Mail
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