A cross-sectional study assessing visual abstracts of randomized trials revealed inadequate reporting and high prevalence of spin.

OBJECTIVES: Visual abstracts (VAs) lack study-specific reporting guidelines and are increasingly used as stand-alone sources in medical research dissemination although not designed for this purpose. Therefore, our objectives were to describe 1) completeness of reporting in VAs and corresponding written abstracts (WAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 2) the extent and type of spin (ie, any reporting pattern that could distort result interpretation and mislead readers) in VAs and WAs of RCTs with a statistically nonsignificant primary outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study evaluating VAs and WAs of RCTs published between January 1, 2021, and March 3, 2023. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed for reports of RCTs published in the 15 highest impact factor journals from six medical fields (among which 34 journals producing VAs of RCTs were identified). One reviewer identified primary reports of RCTs published with a VA and randomly selected a maximum of 10 reports from each journal to avoid overrepresentation. The completeness of reporting assessment was based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for abstracts. Spin was explored using a standardized spin classification for RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcome results. Both assessments were conducted in duplicate, with discussion until consensus in case of discrepancy. RESULTS: A random sample of 253 reports from 34 journals was identified. The information provided in VAs was frequently incomplete: primary outcome identification, primary outcome results, and harms were respectively described or displayed in only 47% (n = 116/247), 30% (n = 75/247), and 35% (n = 88/253). Reporting was slightly better for some items in WAs, although still unsatisfactory. Among trials with nonsignificant primary outcome results (n = 101), 57% (n = 58) of the VAs and 55% (n = 56) of the WAs exhibited at least 1 type of spin. Posthoc analyses showed VAs produced by journal editors of high-impact general medical journals were more complete and more accurate than those produced by specialty journals or authors. CONCLUSION: The information conveyed in VAs was frequently incomplete and inaccurate, highlighting the urgent need to refer to appropriate specific reporting guidelines to avoid misinterpretation by readers.

Anti-TNF (adalimumab) injection for the treatment of pain-predominant early-stage frozen shoulder: the Anti-Freaze-Feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Anti-Freaze-F (AFF) trial assessed the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to determine whether intra-articular injection of adalimumab can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain-predominant early-stage frozen shoulder. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised feasibility trial, with embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Four UK National Health Service (NHS) musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥18 years with new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early-stage frozen shoulder. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to either ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of: (1) adalimumab (160 mg) or (2) placebo (saline (0.9% sodium chloride)). Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Second injection of allocated treatment (adalimumab 80 mg) or equivalent placebo was administered 2-3 weeks later. PRIMARY FEASIBILITY OBJECTIVES: (1) Ability to screen and identify participants; (2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised; (3) practicalities of delivering the intervention; (4) SD of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months. RESULTS: Between 31 May 2022 and 7 February 2023, 156 patients were screened of whom 39 (25%) were eligible. The main reasons for ineligibility were other shoulder disorder (38.5%; n=45/117) or no longer in pain-predominant frozen shoulder (33.3%; n=39/117). Of the 39 eligible patients, nine (23.1%) consented to be randomised (adalimumab n=4; placebo n=5). The main reason patients declined was because they preferred receiving steroid injection (n=13). All participants received treatment as allocated. The mean time from randomisation to first injection was 12.3 (adalimumab) and 7.2 days (placebo). Completion rates for patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes were 100%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that current NHS musculoskeletal physiotherapy settings yielded only small numbers of participants, too few to make a trial viable. This was because many patients had passed the early stage of frozen shoulder or had already formulated a preference for treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 27075727, EudraCT 2021-03509-23, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242 (REC 21/NE/0214).

Reporting completeness of nutrition and diet-related randomised controlled trials protocols.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols. METHODS: We conducted a meta-research study of 200 nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols published in 2019 and 2021 (aiming to consider periods before and after the start of the COVID pandemic). Data extraction included bibliometric information, general study characteristics, compliance with 122 questions corresponding to items and subitems in the SPIRIT and TIDieR checklists combined, and mention to these reporting guidelines in the publications. We calculated the proportion of protocols reporting each item and the frequency of items reported for each protocol. We investigated associations between selected publication aspects and reporting completeness using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The majority of protocols included adults and elderly as their study population (n = 73; 36.5%), supplementation as intervention (n = 96; 48.0%), placebo as comparator (n = 89; 44.5%), and evaluated clinical status as the outcome (n = 80; 40.0%). Most protocols described a parallel RCT (n = 188; 94.0%) with a superiority framework (n = 141; 70.5%). Overall reporting completeness was 52.0% (SD = 10.8%). Adherence to SPIRIT items ranged from 0% (n = 0) (data collection methods) to 98.5% (n = 197) (eligibility criteria). Adherence to TIDieR items ranged from 5.5% (n = 11) (materials used in the intervention) to 98.5% (n = 197) (description of the intervention). The multivariable regression analysis suggests that a higher number of authors [ß = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28-0.78)], most recent published protocols [ß = 3.19 (95%CI: 0.24-6.14)], request of reporting guideline checklist during the submission process by the journal [ß = 6.50 (95%CI: 2.56-10.43)] and mention of SPIRIT by the authors [ß = 5.15 (95%CI: 2.44-7.86)] are related to higher reporting completeness scores. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting completeness in a random sample of 200 diet or nutrition-related RCT protocols was low. Number of authors, year of publication, self-reported adherence to SPIRIT, and journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines seem to be positively associated with reporting completeness in nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.

Methods used to develop the SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements.

OBJECTIVES: To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines. METHODS: We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonization of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines, and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees. RESULTS: We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n = 5) or CONSORT (n = 28). Of 463 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n = 0; CONSORT n = 14) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (≥80% agreement), and participants provided 3580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n = 2; CONSORT n = 2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity. CONCLUSION: The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonized guidance for reporting randomized controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.

Pharmacological interventions for early-stage frozen shoulder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for treating early-stage, pain predominant, adhesive capsulitis, also known as frozen shoulder. METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with PRSIMA guidelines. Searches were conducted on PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on the 24th of February 2022. Outcomes were shoulder pain, shoulder function and range of movement. Synthesis involved both qualitative analysis for all studies and pairwise meta-analyses followed by a network meta-analysis for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: A total of 3,252 articles were found, of which 31 met inclusion criteria, and 22 of these were RCTs. Intraarticular (IA) injection of corticosteroids (8 RCTS, 340 participants) and IA injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (3 RCTs, 177 participants) showed benefit at 12 weeks compared with physical therapy in terms of shoulder pain and function, while oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) (2 RCTs, 44 participants) and IA injection of hyaluronate (2 RCTs, 42 participants) did not show a benefit. Only IA PRP showed benefit over physical therapy for shoulder range of movement. CONCLUSION: These results shows that IA corticosteroids IA PRP injections are beneficial for early-stage frozen shoulder. These findings should be appraised with care considering the risk of bias, heterogeneity, and inconsistency of the included studies. We believe that research focused on early interventions for frozen shoulder could improve patient outcomes and lead to cost-savings derived from avoiding long-term disability. Further well-designed studies comparing with standardised physical therapy or placebo are required to improve evidence to guide management.

Hospital-based caregiver intervention for people following hip fracture surgery (HIP HELPER): multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. INTERVENTION: Usual care: usual NHS care. EXPERIMENTAL: usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals. RESULTS: 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient-caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site's ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13270387.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement.

Importance: Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials. Evidence Review: The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist. Findings: This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

Perspectives of informal caregivers who support people following hip fracture surgery: a qualitative study embedded within the HIP HELPER feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to illuminate the perspectives of informal caregivers who support people following hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: A qualitative study embedded within a now completed multicentre, feasibility randomised controlled trial (HIP HELPER). SETTING: Five English National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 20 participants (10 informal caregivers and 10 people with hip fracture), following hip fracture surgery. This included one male and nine females who experienced a hip fracture; and seven male and three female informal caregivers. The median age was 72.5 years (range: 65-96 years), 71.0 years (range: 43-81 years) for people with hip fracture and informal caregivers, respectively. METHODS: Semistructured, virtual interviews were undertaken between November 2021 and March 2022, with caregiver dyads (person with hip fracture and their informal caregiver). Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: We identified two main themes: expectations of the informal caregiver role and reality of being an informal caregiver; and subthemes: expectations of care and services; responsibility and advocacy; profile of people with hip fracture; decision to be a caregiver; transition from hospital to home. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest informal caregivers do not feel empowered to advocate for a person's recovery or navigate the care system, leading to increased and unnecessary stress, anxiety and frustration when supporting the person with hip fracture. We suggest that a tailored information giving on the recovery pathway, which is responsive to the caregiving population (ie, considering the needs of male, younger and more active informal caregivers and people with hip fracture) would smooth the transition from hospital to home. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13270387.Cite Now.

Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact. RESULTS: No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2-97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6-94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7-93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7-89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days). CONCLUSION: Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196922.

Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis: An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) performed for different indications. METHODS: This population-based cohort study utilized data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, National Health Service Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing a first rTKA between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2019, were included in our data set. Patient-relevant outcomes included implant survivorship (up to 11 years postoperatively), mortality and serious medical complications (up to 90 days postoperatively), and patient-reported outcome measures (at 6 months postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 24,540 first rTKAs were analyzed. The patient population was 54% female and 62% White, with a mean age at the first rTKA of 69 years. At 2 years postoperatively, the cumulative incidence of re-revision surgery ranged from 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9% to 3.4%) following rTKA for progressive arthritis to 16.3% (95% CI, 15.2% to 17.4%) following rTKA for infection. The mortality rate at 90 days was highest following rTKA for fracture (3.6% [95% CI, 2.5% to 5.1%]) and for infection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%]) but was <0.5% for other indications. The rate of serious medical complications requiring hospital admission within 90 days was highest for patients treated for fracture (21.8% [95% CI, 17.9% to 26.3%]) or infection (12.5% [95% CI, 11.2% to 13.9%]) and was lowest for those treated for progressive arthritis (4.3% [95% CI, 3.3% to 5.5%]). Patients who underwent rTKA for stiffness or unexplained pain had some of the poorest postoperative joint function (mean Oxford Knee Score, 24 and 25 points, respectively) and had the lowest proportion of responders (48% and 55%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study found large differences in patient-relevant outcomes among different indications for first rTKA. The rate of complications was highest following rTKA for fracture or infection. Although rTKA resulted in large improvements in joint function for most patients, those who underwent surgery for stiffness and unexplained pain had worse outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study.

BACKGROUND: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). METHODS: The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback. RESULTS: The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. CONCLUSIONS: By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials.

Importance: Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal. Objective: To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group. Interventions: The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles. Results: In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

Tailored exercise management (TEMPO) versus usual care for people aged 80 years or older with hip/knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is recommended for all people with osteoarthritis. However, these recommendations are based on randomised clinical trials including people with an average age between 60 and 70 years, and these findings cannot reliably be generalised to people aged 80 years or older. Rapid loss of muscle occurs after 70 years of age, and older people are more likely to also have other health conditions that contribute to difficulties with daily activities and impact on their response to exercise. To improve care for people aged 80 or older with osteoarthritis, it is thought that a tailored exercise intervention targeting both osteoarthritis and any other health conditions they have, may be needed. The aim of this study will be to test if it is possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for people over 80 years of age with hip/knee osteoarthritis of a tailored exercise intervention. METHODS: A multicentre, parallel, 2-group, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study, conducted in ≥ 3 UK NHS physiotherapy outpatient services. Participants (n ≥ 50) with clinical knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and ≥ 1 comorbidity will be recruited by screening referrals to participating NHS physiotherapy outpatient services, via screening of general practice records and via identification of eligible individuals from a cohort study run by our research group. Participants will be randomised (computer-generated: 1:1) to receive either: a 12-week education and tailored exercise intervention (TEMPO); or usual care and written information. The primary feasibility objectives are to estimate: (1) ability to screen and recruit eligible participants; (2) retention of participants, measured by the proportion of participants who provide outcome data at 14-week follow-up. Secondary quantitative objectives are to estimate: (1) participant engagement assessed by physiotherapy session attendance and home exercise adherence; (2) sample size calculation for a definitive RCT. One-to-one semi-structured interviews will explore the experiences of trial participants and physiotherapists delivering the TEMPO programme. DISCUSSION: Progression criteria will be used to determine whether a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the TEMPO programme is considered feasible with or without modifications to the intervention or trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75983430. Registered 3/12/2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75983430.

Recommendations for progression criteria during external randomised pilot trial design, conduct, analysis and reporting.

BACKGROUND: External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is feasible. Prespecified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive RCT should be conducted. This commentary presents a set of proposed recommendations for progression criteria to guide researchers when (i) designing, (ii) conducting, (iii) analysing and (iv) reporting external randomised pilot trials. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a mixed methods approach. This involved (i) a methodological review of pilot trial publications, (ii) a cross-sectional study of pilot trial research funding applications, (iii) qualitative interviews with pilot trial researchers and (iv) a survey of corresponding authors of identified pilot trial publications. Initial recommendations were refined following two consultation stakeholder workshops held in July 2022. Recommendations for progression criteria for external randomised pilot trials: i. DESIGN: consider progression criteria from the earliest opportunity; map progression criteria to feasibility objectives; consider quantitative and qualitative interpretations of feasibility; provide justification; develop guidelines rather than rules; seek input from relevant stakeholders. ii. Conduct: regularly monitor pilot trial data against progression criteria. iii. ANALYSIS: avoid considering each progression criterion in isolation; engage in discussion with relevant stakeholders; consider context and other factors external to the pilot trial; consider feasibility (can we?) and progression (will we?). iv. Reporting: we propose a reporting checklist in relation to progression criteria and recommend reporting in a table format for clarity. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide a helpful resource for researchers to consider progression criteria at different stages of external randomised pilot trials. We have produced a simple infographic tool to summarise these recommendations for researchers to refer to. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these proposed recommendations should inform future development, or update, of established guidelines for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of external randomised pilot trials.

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: the DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by ICR's Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites. REGISTRATION DETAILS: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network.

Completeness of Reporting in Diet- and Nutrition-Related Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analysis: Protocol for 2 Independent Meta-Research Studies.

BACKGROUND: Journal articles describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis of RCTs are not optimally reported and often miss crucial details. This poor reporting makes assessing these studies' risk of bias or reproducing their results difficult. However, the reporting quality of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs, estimate the frequency of reproducible research practices among these RCTs, and estimate the frequency of distorted presentation or spin among these meta-analyses. METHODS: Two independent meta-research studies will be conducted using articles published in PubMed-indexed journals. The first will include a sample of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs; the second will include a sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs. A validated search strategy will be used to identify RCTs of nutritional interventions and an adapted strategy to identify meta-analyses in PubMed. We will search for RCTs and meta-analyses indexed in 1 calendar year and randomly select 100 RCTs (June 2021 to June 2022) and 100 meta-analyses (July 2021 to July 2022). Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the searches, then read the full texts to confirm their eligibility. The general features of these published RCTs and meta-analyses will be extracted into a research electronic data capture database (REDCap; Vanderbilt University). The completeness of reporting of each RCT will be assessed using the items in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), its extensions, and the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) statements. Information about practices that promote research transparency and reproducibility, such as the publication of protocols and statistical analysis plans will be collected. There will be an assessment of the completeness of reporting of each meta-analysis using the items in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and collection of information about spin in the abstracts and full-texts. The results will be presented as descriptive statistics in diagrams or tables. These 2 meta-research studies are registered in the Open Science Framework. RESULTS: The literature search for the first meta-research retrieved 20,030 records and 2182 were potentially eligible. The literature search for the second meta-research retrieved 10,918 records and 850 were potentially eligible. Among them, random samples of 100 RCTs and 100 meta-analyses were selected for data extraction. Data extraction is currently in progress, and completion is expected by the beginning of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-research studies will summarize the main limitation on reporting completeness of nutrition- or diet-related RCTs and meta-analyses and provide comprehensive information regarding the particularities in the reporting of intervention studies in the nutrition field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43537.