MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184461518 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13314.1

A study protocol for the development of a SPIRIT extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (SPIRIT-ROUTINE)

2021· preprint· en· W3184461518 on OpenAlexaff
Megan McCarthy, Linda M. O’Keeffe, Paula Williamson, Matthew R. Sydes, Amanda Farrin, Fiona Lugg‐Widger, Gwyneth Davies, Kerry Avery, An‐Wen Chan, Linda Kwakkenbos, Brett D. Thombs, Alan Watkins, Lars G. Hemkens, Chris Gale, Merrick Zwarenstein, Sinéad Langan, Lehana Thabane, Edmund Juszczak, David Moher, Patricia M. Kearney

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityImpactMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of BristolRoyal College of Surgeons of EnglandNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustHealth Research BoardWellcome Trust
KeywordsProtocol (science)ChecklistDelphi methodMedicineScope (computer science)Clinical trialConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsData collectionElectronic data captureDelphiResearch designMedical physicsAlternative medicinePsychologyComputer sciencePathologyArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Background:</ns3:bold> Protocols are an essential document for conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the completeness of the information provided is often inadequate. To help improve the content of trial protocols, an international group of stakeholders published the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Initiative in 2013. Presently, there is increasing use of cohorts and routinely collected data (RCD) for RCTs because these data have the potential to improve efficiencies by facilitating recruitment, simplifying, and reducing the cost of data collection. Reporting guidelines have been shown to improve the quality of reporting, but there is currently no specific SPIRIT guidance on protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. This protocol outlines steps for developing SPIRIT-ROUTINE, which aims to address this gap by extending the SPIRIT guidance to protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> The development of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension comprises five stages. Stage 1 consists of a project launch and a meeting to finalise the membership of the steering group and scope of the extension. In Stage 2, a rapid review will be performed to identify possible modifications to the original SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Other key reporting guidelines will be reviewed to identify areas where additional items may be needed, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Stage 3 will involve an online Delphi exercise, consisting of two rounds and involving key international stakeholders to gather feedback on the preliminary checklist items. In Stage 4, a consensus meeting of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE steering group will finalise the items to include in the extension. Stage 5 will involve the publication preparation and dissemination of the final checklist. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusion: </ns3:bold> The SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension will contribute to improving design of trials using cohorts and RCD and transparency of reporting. </ns3:p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.616
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.308
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6160.308
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.000
Open science0.0100.017
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.991
GPT teacher head0.766
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207