MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407636794 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082917

Mixed-methods study to develop extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements for factorial randomised trials: the Reporting Factorial Trials (RAFT) study

2025· article· en· W4407636794 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Hall, Edmund Juszczak, Megan Birchenall, Diana Elbourne, Elaine Beller, An‐Wen Chan, Paul Little, Alan Montgomery, Brennan C Kahan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsChecklistMedicineDelphi methodProtocol (science)Research designFactorial experimentClinical trialMedical educationFamily medicineAlternative medicinePsychologyStatisticsMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Extensions to Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting recommendations specifically for factorial trials have been developed by the Reporting Factorial Trials (RAFT) study group. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extensions. OBJECTIVE: To develop SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for factorial trials. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A four-phase, consensus-based approach was used: phase 1: scoping review, phase 2: Delphi survey (n=104 respondents in round 1), phase 3: consensus meeting (n=15 members) and phase 4: checklist finalisation. RESULTS: In phase 1, the scoping review identified 31 reporting recommendations, which formed a long list of 50 concepts (19 applied to the SPIRIT extension and 31 applied to the CONSORT extension) to include in the guideline development. In phase 2, a three-round Delphi survey resulted in two new concepts being added and ended with 49 concepts (19 applied to SPIRIT and 30 applied to CONSORT) reaching consensus to remain, with only three concepts meeting the exclusion criteria. In phase 3, the concepts were further refined and translated into specific extension item wording, through an extensive review process conducted by the core RAFT team and leading trial experts, who attended a 2-day hybrid meeting. The resulting 9 SPIRIT items and 17 CONSORT items were further evaluated and developed through an iterative process in phase 4, to promote user acceptance and uptake. CONCLUSION: Uptake of the CONSORT and SPIRIT extensions will improve the conduct of factorial trials, as well as understanding and interpretation of such trials. By reporting on how these extensions were developed, we promote transparency of this process and share learning experiences to develop best practice when developing reporting guidelines.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.488
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.587
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4880.587
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.938
GPT teacher head0.746
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→