Search

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.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis., Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement., Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 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 the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports., Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18)., Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of trial registration in health research, whether trial registration status and timing vary depending on trial characteristics, and the relationship between trial registration status and risk of bias., Study Design and Setting: We systematically reviewed all clinical trials published from January to June 2017 in 28 high- and low-impact factor general and specialty medicine journals., Results: We identified 370 trials and assessed risk of bias in 183 trials. Trial registration rates were high; 95% of trials were registered prospectively or retrospectively before enrollment completion. Larger sample size, multiple recruitment countries, and primary industry funding were all predictors of earlier trial registration. Prospectively registered trials had a significantly lower risk of bias compared to unregistered trials across all domains. Prospectively registered trials had a similar risk of bias compared to retrospectively registered trials across four out of six domains, and a lower risk of bias across the remaining two domains., Conclusion: Trial registration is an imperfect proxy for risk of bias. Systematic reviewers should assess risk of bias on a case-by-case basis and conduct sensitivity analyses excluding high risk of bias studies. In the longer term, mechanisms should be implemented to facilitate prospective registration of all trials., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To demonstrate how individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses have impacted directly on the design and conduct of trials and highlight other advantages IPD might offer., Study Design and Setting: Potential examples of the impact of IPD meta-analyses on trials were identified at an international workshop, attended by individuals with experience in the conduct of IPD meta-analyses and knowledge of trials in their respective clinical areas. Experts in the field who did not attend were asked to provide any further examples. We then examined relevant trial protocols, publications, and Web sites to verify the impacts of the IPD meta-analyses. A subgroup of workshop attendees sought further examples and identified other aspects of trial design and conduct that may inform IPD meta-analyses., Results: We identified 52 examples of IPD meta-analyses thought to have had a direct impact on the design or conduct of trials. After screening relevant trial protocols and publications, we identified 28 instances where IPD meta-analyses had clearly impacted on trials. They have influenced the selection of comparators and participants, sample size calculations, analysis and interpretation of subsequent trials, and the conduct and analysis of ongoing trials, sometimes in ways that would not possible with systematic reviews of aggregate data. We identified additional potential ways that IPD meta-analyses could be used to influence trials., Conclusions: IPD meta-analysis could be better used to inform the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of trials., (Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer patients want access to reliable information about currently recruiting clinical trials., Patients and Methods: Oncologists and their patients were randomly assigned to access a consumer-friendly cancer clinical trials web site [Australian Cancer Trials (ACT), www.australiancancertrials.gov.au] or to usual care in a cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome, measured from audio recordings of oncologist-patient consultations, was the proportion of patients with whom participation in any clinical trial was discussed. Analysis was by intention-to-treat accounting for clustering and stratification., Results: Thirty medical oncologists and 493 patients were recruited. Overall, 46% of consultations in the intervention group compared with 34% in the control group contained a discussion about clinical trials (P=0.08). The mean consultation length in both groups was 29 min (P=0.69). The proportion consenting to a trial was 10% in both groups (P=0.65). Patients' knowledge about randomized trials was lower in the intervention than the control group (mean score 3.0 versus 3.3, P=0.03) but decisional conflict scores were similar (mean score 42 versus 43, P=0.83)., Conclusions: Good communication between patients and physicians is essential. Within this context, a web site such as Australian Cancer Trials may be an important tool to encourage discussion about clinical trial participation.

Objective: To quantify and describe current cancer clinical trial activity in Australia and help guide future trials research using trial registries., Design and Setting: Data from cancer trials recruiting in Australia at 31 March 2009 were extracted from the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. A regression model was used to identify factors associated with industry sponsorship., Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of cancer trials compared with estimated burden of disease for each cancer., Results: There were 368 interventional cancer trials open to recruitment. The most-researched cancer was breast cancer, accounting for 17% of trials. Only 7% of trials were in lung cancer, yet lung cancer is responsible for the greatest burden of disease. Industry was the primary sponsor in 43% of trials. Drug treatments were tested in most trials (69%). Trials were more likely to be industry sponsored if they tested systemic rather than local treatments (OR, 16.71; 95% CI, 4.70-59.43), included patients with advanced rather than early disease (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.78-7.94) and used random rather than non-random allocation (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-3.00)., Conclusion: There is variation in the number of trials according to cancer site, with some cancers being underrepresented relative to their burden of disease. Industry sponsorship is more likely for trials that investigate systemic therapy, recruit patients with advanced disease and are randomised.

Background: Clinical trials registries are now operating in the USA, Europe, Australia, China, and India and more are planned. Trial registries could be an excellent source of information about clinical trials for patients and others affected by cancer as well as health care professionals, but may be difficult for patients to navigate and use., Purpose: An opportunity arose in Australia to develop a consumer friendly cancer clinical trials website (Australian Cancer Trials Online (ACTO), www.australiancancertrials.gov.au) using an automated data feed from two large clinical trial registries. In this article, we describe aspects of this new website, and explore ways in which such a website may add value to clinical trial data which are already collected and held by trial registries., Methods: The development of ACTO was completed by a Web company working in close association with staff at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), and with consumer representatives. Data for the website were sourced directly and only from clinical trial registries, thus avoiding the creation of an additional trials database. It receives an automated, daily data feed of newly registered cancer clinical trials from both the ANZCTR and Clinical Trials.gov., Results: The development of ACTO exemplifies the advantage of a local clinical trial registry working with consumers to provide accessible information about cancer clinical trials to meet consumers' information needs. We found that the inclusion of a lay summary added substantial value for consumers, and recommend that consideration be given to adding a lay summary to the mandatory data items collected by all trial registries. Furthermore, improved navigation, decision support tools, and consistency in data collection between clinical trial registries will also enable consumer websites to provide additional value for users., Limitations: Clinical trial registration is not compulsory in Australia. If the additional cancer items (including a lay summary) are not provided by registrants of cancer trials on ANZCTR, this can compromise the quality and usefulness of the data for the end-user, in this case consumers, as they may encounter gaps in the data., Conclusion: Expanding the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set to include this additional information, particularly the lay summary, would be valuable. A well-coordinated system of clinical trial registration is critical to the success of efforts to provide better access for all to inform about clinical trials.