MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409878505 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081477

SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials

2025· article· en· W4409878505 on OpenAlexaff
An‐Wen Chan, Isabelle Boutron, Sally Hopewell, David Moher, Kenneth F. Schulz, Gary S. Collins, R. Tunn, Rakesh Aggarwal, Michael Berkwits, Jesse A. Berlin, Nita Bhandari, Nancy J. Butcher, Marion Campbell, Runcie C.W. Chidebe, Diana Elbourne, Andrew Farmer, Dean Fergusson, Robert M. Golub, Steven N. Goodman, Tammy Hoffmann, John P. A. Ioannidis, Brennan C Kahan, Rachel L Knowles, Sarah E Lamb, Steff Lewis, Elizabeth Loder, Martin Offringa, Philippe Ravaud, Dawn P. Richards, Frank W. Rockhold, David L. Schriger, Nandi Siegfried, Sophie Staniszewska, R. Taylor, Lehana Thabane, David Torgerson, Sunita Vohra, Ian R. White, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity of AlbertaRobarts Clinical TrialsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHospital for Sick ChildrenOttawa HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityWomen's College Hospital
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsChecklistProtocol (science)Consolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsGuidelineDelphi methodMedicineDelphiMEDLINEClinical trialPsychological interventionMedical educationEvidence-based practiceAlternative medicineComputer scienceFamily medicinePsychologyNursingPathologyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: The protocol of a randomised trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. OBJECTIVE: To systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomised trial. DESIGN: We completed a scoping review and developed a project specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. FINDINGS: Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other reviewers.

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)0.426
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4260.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.841
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations286
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207