Guidance for reporting outcomes in clinical trials: scoping review protocol

被引:10
|
作者
Butcher, Nancy J. [1 ]
Mew, Emma J. [1 ]
Saeed, Leena [1 ]
Monsour, Andrea [1 ]
Chee-a-Tow, Alyssandra [1 ]
Chan, An-Wen [2 ]
Moher, David [3 ]
Offringa, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Sick Children, Res Inst, Child Hlth Evaluat Sci, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, Womens Coll Res Inst, Womens Coll Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Ctr Journalol, Clin Epidemiol Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2019年 / 9卷 / 02期
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
RANDOMIZED-TRIALS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023001
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction Patients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes. Methods and analysis We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources. Ethics and dissemination A paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Clinical Considerations and Outcomes for Spine Surgery Patients with a History of Transplant: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol
    Kalagara, Roshini
    Asfaw, Zerubabbel K.
    Carr, Matthew T.
    Quinones, Addison
    Genadry, Lisa
    Nakadar, Zaid
    Haris, Anzila
    Schupper, Alexander J.
    Gal, Jonathan S.
    Choudhri, Tanvir F.
    [J]. METHODS AND PROTOCOLS, 2022, 5 (03)
  • [42] Advances in Exercise in the Clinical Trials of Migraine: A Scoping Review
    Ha, Woo-Seok
    Chu, Min Kyung
    [J]. CURRENT PAIN AND HEADACHE REPORTS, 2024, 28 (08) : 753 - 767
  • [43] Methodological rigor and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for adults hospitalized with bacterial pneumonia: a scoping review protocol
    Wonder, Amy Hagedorn
    Nick, Jan M.
    Adeoye, Olayemi O.
    Sehgal, Gurmeet
    [J]. JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2023, 21 (03) : 617 - 626
  • [44] Stakeholder perspectives on adaptive clinical trials: a scoping review
    Madani Kia, Tina
    Marshall, John C.
    Murthy, Srinivas
    [J]. TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [45] Stakeholder perspectives on adaptive clinical trials: a scoping review
    Tina Madani Kia
    John C. Marshall
    Srinivas Murthy
    [J]. Trials, 21
  • [46] Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance
    Daniel, Michelle
    Rencic, Joseph
    Durning, Steven J.
    Holmboe, Eric
    Santen, Sally A.
    Lang, Valerie
    Ratcliffe, Temple
    Gordon, David
    Heist, Brian
    Lubarsky, Stuart
    Estrada, Carlos A.
    Ballard, Tiffany
    Artino Jr, Anthony R.
    Da Silva, Ana Sergio
    Cleary, Timothy
    Stojan, Jennifer
    Gruppen, Larry D.
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2019, 94 (06) : 902 - 912
  • [47] Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Clinical Trials: Is 'In-Trial' Guidance Lacking? A Systematic Review
    Kyte, Derek G.
    Draper, Heather
    Ives, Jonathan
    Liles, Clive
    Gheorghe, Adrian
    Calvert, Melanie
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (04):
  • [48] Primary Outcomes Reporting in Trials (PORTal): a systematic review of inadequate reporting in pediatric randomized controlled trials
    Bhaloo, Zafira
    Adams, Denise
    Liu, Yali
    Hansraj, Namrata
    Hartling, Lisa
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Vohra, Sunita
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 81 : 33 - 41
  • [49] Systematic review on reporting of components and outcomes in randomized clinical trials of paraoesophageal hernia mesh repair
    Currie, A. C.
    Penney, N.
    Kamocka, A.
    Singh, P.
    Abbassi-Ghadi, N.
    Preston, S. R.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 108 (03) : 256 - 264
  • [50] Reporting of post-protocol therapies in metastatic breast cancer registration clinical trials: A systematic review
    Shachar, Shlomit Strulov
    Korzets, Yasmin
    Shepshelovich, Daniel
    Zlothover, Noa
    Amir, Eitan
    Tibau, Ariadna
    Goldvaser, Hadar
    [J]. CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS, 2024, 122