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.

Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain. CONCLUSION: Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications. METHODS: We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments. RESULTS: We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

Instruments assessing risk of bias of randomized trials frequently included items that are not addressing risk of bias issues.

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items. CONCLUSION: Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Steroidal contraceptives: effect on carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Many hormonal contraceptives have been associated with changes in carbohydrate metabolism. Alterations may include decreased glucose tolerance and increased insulin resistance, which are risk factors for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. These issues have been raised primarily with contraceptives containing estrogen. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hormonal contraceptives on carbohydrate metabolism in healthy women and those at risk for diabetes due to overweight. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2014, we searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, and LILACS for studies of hormonal contraceptives and carbohydrate metabolism. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. The initial search also included EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials were considered if they examined carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes who used hormonal contraceptives for contraception. Comparisons could be a placebo, a non-hormonal contraceptive, or another hormonal contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, or regimen. Interventions included at least three cycles. Outcomes included glucose and insulin measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts identified during the literature searches. The data were extracted and entered into RevMan. We wrote to researchers for missing data. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We found 31 trials that met the inclusion criteria. No new trials were eligible in 2014. Twenty-one trials compared combined oral contraceptives (COCs); others examined different COC regimens, progestin-only pills, injectables, a vaginal ring, and implants. None included a placebo. Of 34 comparisons, eight had any notable difference between the study groups in an outcome. Twelve trials studied desogestrel-containing COCs, and the few differences from levonorgestrel COCs were inconsistent. A meta-analysis of two studies showed the desogestrel group had a higher mean fasting glucose (MD 0.20; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41). Where data could not be combined, single studies showed lower mean fasting glucose (MD -0.40; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.08) and higher means for two-hour glucose response (MD 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.71) and insulin area under the curve (AUC) (MD 20.30; 95% CI 4.24 to 36.36). Three trials examined the etonogestrel vaginal ring and one examined an etonogestrel implant. One trial showed the ring group had lower mean AUC insulin than the levonorgestrel-COC group (MD -204.51; 95% CI -389.64 to -19.38). Of eight trials of norethisterone preparations, five compared COCs and three compared injectables. In a COC trial, a norethisterone group had smaller mean change in glucose two-hour response than a levonorgestrel-COC group (MD -0.30; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06). In an injectable study, a group using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate had higher means than the group using norethisterone enanthate for fasting glucose (MD 10.05; 95% CI 3.16 to 16.94), glucose two-hour response (MD 17.00; 95% CI 5.67 to 28.33), and fasting insulin (MD 3.40; 95% CI 2.07 to 4.73). Among five recent trials, two examined newer COCs with different estrogen types. One showed the group with nomegestrel acetate plus 17ß-estradiol had lower means than the levonorgestrel group for incremental AUC glucose (MD -1.43; 95% CI -2.55 to -0.31) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02). Two trials compared extended versus conventional (cyclic) regimens. With a dienogest COC, an extended-use group had greater mean change in AUC glucose (MD 82.00; 95% CI 10.72 to 153.28). In a small trial using two levonorgestrel COCs, the lower-dose group showed smaller mean change in fasting glucose (MD -3.00; 95% CI -5.89 to -0.11), but the obese and normal weight women did not differ significantly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests no major differences in carbohydrate metabolism between different hormonal contraceptives in women without diabetes. We cannot make strong statements due to having few studies that compared the same types of contraceptives. Many trials had small numbers of participants and some had large losses. Many of the earlier studies had limited reporting of methods. We still know very little about women at risk for metabolic problems due to being overweight. More than half of the trials had weight restrictions as inclusion criteria. Only one small trial stratified the groups by body mass index (obese versus normal).

CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts.

Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.

Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal "Instructions to Authors" in 2014.

BACKGROUND: The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional examination of the online "Instructions to Authors" of 168 high impact factor (2012) biomedical journals between July and December 2014. We assessed whether the text of the "Instructions to Authors" mentioned the CONSORT Statement and any CONSORT extensions, and we quantified the extent and nature of the journals' endorsements of these. These data were described by frequencies. We also determined whether journals mentioned trial registration and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; other than in regards to trial registration) and whether either of these was associated with CONSORT endorsement (relative risk and 95 % confidence interval). We compared our findings to the two previous iterations of this survey (in 2003 and 2007). We also identified the publishers of the included journals. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent (106/168) of the included journals mentioned CONSORT in their "Instructions to Authors." Forty-four endorsers (42 %) explicitly stated that authors "must" use CONSORT to prepare their trial manuscript, 38 % required an accompanying completed CONSORT checklist as a condition of submission, and 39 % explicitly requested the inclusion of a flow diagram with the submission. CONSORT extensions were endorsed by very few journals. One hundred and thirty journals (77 %) mentioned ICMJE, and 106 (63 %) mentioned trial registration. CONCLUSIONS: The endorsement of CONSORT by high impact journals has increased over time; however, specific instructions on how CONSORT should be used by authors are inconsistent across journals and publishers. Publishers and journals should encourage authors to use CONSORT and set clear expectations for authors about compliance with CONSORT.

Declaración SPIRIT 2013: definición de los elementos estándares del protocolo de un ensayo clínico / SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials

El protocolo de un ensayo clínico es la base para planificar, ejecutar, publicar y evaluar el ensayo. Sin embargo, los protocolos y las guías que existen para su elaboración varían enormemente en cuanto a su calidad y contenido. En este artículo se describe la elaboración sistemática y el alcance de la Declaración SPIRIT 2013 (denominada así por la sigla en inglés de Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials o Elementos estándares de un protocolo: recomendaciones para los ensayos de intervención), una guía en la que se establecen los contenidos mínimos que debe tener el protocolo de un ensayo clínico. La lista de comprobación de la declaración SPIRIT, que consta de 33 elementos, se aplica a los protocolos de todos los ensayos clínicos y se centra más en el contenido que en el formato. En esta lista se recomienda hacer una descripción completa de lo que se ha planificado, aunque no se establece cómo diseñar o ejecutar un ensayo. Al brindar orientación sobre los contenidos fundamentales, las recomendaciones SPIRIT procuran facilitar la redacción de protocolos de alta calidad. El cumplimiento de las recomendaciones SPIRIT debería mejorar la transparencia y la exhaustividad de los protocolos de los ensayos en beneficio de los investigadores, los participantes, los pacientes, los patrocinadores, los financiadores, los comités de ética de la investigación o las juntas de revisión institucionales, los revisores, las revistas biomédicas, los registros de ensayos, los formuladores de políticas, los organismos reguladores y otras partes interesadas clave.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Declaración SPIRIT 2013: definición de los elementos estándares del protocolo de un ensayo clínico / SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials

El protocolo de un ensayo clínico es la base para planificar, ejecutar, publicar y evaluar el ensayo. Sin embargo, los protocolos y las guías que existen para su elaboración varían enormemente en cuanto a su calidad y contenido. En este artículo se describe la elaboración sistemática y el alcance de la Declaración SPIRIT 2013 (denominada así por la sigla en inglés de Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials o Elementos estándares de un protocolo: recomendaciones para los ensayos de intervención), una guía en la que se establecen los contenidos mínimos que debe tener el protocolo de un ensayo clínico. La lista de comprobación de la declaración SPIRIT, que consta de 33 elementos, se aplica a los protocolos de todos los ensayos clínicos y se centra más en el contenido que en el formato. En esta lista se recomienda hacer una descripción completa de lo que se ha planificado, aunque no se establece cómo diseñar o ejecutar un ensayo. Al brindar orientación sobre los contenidos fundamentales, las recomendaciones SPIRIT procuran facilitar la redacción de protocolos de alta calidad. El cumplimiento de las recomendaciones SPIRIT debería mejorar la transparencia y la exhaustividad de los protocolos de los ensayos en beneficio de los investigadores, los participantes, los pacientes, los patrocinadores, los financiadores, los comités de ética de la investigación o las juntas de revisión institucionales, los revisores, las revistas biomédicas, los registros de ensayos, los formuladores de políticas, los organismos reguladores y otras partes interesadas clave.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name. STUDY SELECTION: English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals). DATA EXTRACTION: Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score. RESULTS: 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

Steroidal contraceptives: effect on bone fractures in women.

BACKGROUND: Steroidal contraceptive use has been associated with changes in bone mineral density in women. Whether such changes increase the risk of fractures later in life is not clear. Osteoporosis is a major public health concern. Age-related decline in bone mass increases the risk of fracture, especially of the spine, hip, and wrist. Concern about bone health influences the recommendation and use of these effective contraceptives globally. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the effect of using hormonal contraceptives before menopause on the risk of fracture in women. SEARCH METHODS: Through April 2014, we searched for studies of fracture or bone health and hormonal contraceptives in MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. We examined reference lists of relevant articles for other trials. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered if they examined fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), or bone turnover markers in women with hormonal contraceptive use prior to menopause. Eligible interventions included comparisons of a hormonal contraceptive with a placebo or with another hormonal contraceptive that differed in terms of drug, dosage, or regimen. They also included providing a supplement to one group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts identified through the literature searches. Mean differences were computed using the inverse variance approach. For dichotomous outcomes, the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was calculated. Both included the 95% confidence interval (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. Due to differing interventions, no trials could be combined for meta-analysis. We applied principles from GRADE to assess the evidence quality and address confidence in the effect estimates. In addition, a sensitivity analysis included trials that provided sufficient data for this review and evidence of at least moderate quality. MAIN RESULTS: We found 19 RCTs that met our eligibility criteria. Eleven trials compared different combined oral contraceptives (COCs) or regimens of COCs; five examined an injectable versus another injectable, implant, or IUD; two studied implants, and one compared the transdermal patch versus the vaginal ring. No trial had fracture as an outcome. BMD was measured in 17 studies and 12 trials assessed biochemical markers of bone turnover. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) was associated with decreased bone mineral density (BMD). The placebo-controlled trials showed BMD increases for DMPA plus estrogen supplement and decreases for DMPA plus placebo supplement. COCs did not appear to negatively affect BMD, and some formulations had more positive effects than others. However, no COC trial was placebo-controlled. Where studies showed differences between groups in bone turnover markers, the results were generally consistent with those for BMD. For implants, the single-rod etonogestrel group showed a greater BMD decrease versus the two-rod levonorgestrel group but results were not consistent across all implant comparisons.The sensitivity analysis included 11 trials providing evidence of moderate or high quality. Four trials involving DMPA showed some positive effects of an estrogen supplement on BMD, a negative effect of DMPA-subcutaneous on lumbar spine BMD, and a negative effect of DMPA on a bone formation marker. Of the three COC trials, one had a BMD decrease for the group with gestodene plus EE 15 µg. Another indicated less bone resorption in the group with gestodene plus EE 30 µg versus EE 20 µg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Whether steroidal contraceptives influence fracture risk cannot be determined from existing information. The evidence quality was considered moderate overall, largely due to the trials of DMPA, implants, and the patch versus ring. The COC evidence varied in quality but was low overall. Many trials had small numbers of participants and some had large losses. Health care providers and women should consider the costs and benefits of these effective contraceptives. For example, injectable contraceptives and implants provide effective, long-term birth control yet do not involve a daily regimen. Progestin-only contraceptives are considered appropriate for women who should avoid estrogen due to medical conditions.

Oral contraceptives for functional ovarian cysts.

BACKGROUND: Functional ovarian cysts are a common gynecological problem among women of reproductive age worldwide. When large, persistent, or painful, these cysts may require operations, sometimes resulting in removal of the ovary. Since early oral contraceptives were associated with a reduced incidence of functional ovarian cysts, many clinicians inferred that birth control pills could be used to treat cysts as well. This became a common clinical practice in the early 1970s. OBJECTIVES: This review examined all randomized controlled trials that studied oral contraceptives as therapy for functional ovarian cysts. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2014, we searched the databases of CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, and POPLINE, as well as clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We also examined the reference lists of articles. For the initial review, we wrote to authors of identified trials to seek articles we had missed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials in any language that included oral contraceptives used for treatment and not prevention of functional ovarian cysts. Criteria for diagnosis of cysts were those used by authors of trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently abstracted data from the articles. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy of data entry. For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomized controlled trials from four countries; the studies included a total of 686 women. Treatment with combined oral contraceptives did not hasten resolution of functional ovarian cysts in any trial. This held true for cysts that occurred spontaneously as well as those that developed after ovulation induction. Most cysts resolved without treatment within a few cycles; persistent cysts tended to be pathological (e.g., endometrioma or para-ovarian cyst) and not physiological. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although widely used for treating functional ovarian cysts, combined oral contraceptives appear to be of no benefit. Watchful waiting for two or three cycles is appropriate. Should cysts persist, surgical management is often indicated.

Steroidal contraceptives: effect on carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Many hormonal contraceptives have been associated with changes in carbohydrate metabolism. Alterations may include decreased glucose tolerance and increased insulin resistance, which are risk factors for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. These issues have been raised primarily with contraceptives containing estrogen. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hormonal contraceptives on carbohydrate metabolism in healthy women and those at risk for diabetes due to overweight. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2014, we searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, and LILACS for studies of hormonal contraceptives and carbohydrate metabolism. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. The initial search also included EMBASE. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials were considered if they examined carbohydrate metabolism in women without diabetes who used hormonal contraceptives for contraception. Comparisons could be a placebo, a non-hormonal contraceptive, or another hormonal contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, or regimen. Interventions included at least three cycles. Outcomes included glucose and insulin measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts identified during the literature searches. The data were extracted and entered into RevMan. We wrote to researchers for missing data. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) was computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We found 31 trials that met the inclusion criteria. No new trials were eligible in 2014. Twenty-one trials compared combined oral contraceptives (COCs); others examined different COC regimens, progestin-only pills, injectables, a vaginal ring, and implants. None included a placebo. Of 34 comparisons, eight had any notable difference between the study groups in an outcome.Twelve trials studied desogestrel-containing COCs, and the few differences from levonorgestrel COCs were inconsistent. A meta-analysis of two studies showed the desogestrel group had a higher mean fasting glucose (MD 0.20; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41). Where data could not be combined, single studies showed lower mean fasting glucose (MD -0.40; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.08) and higher means for two-hour glucose response (MD 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.71) and insulin area under the curve (AUC) (MD 20.30; 95% CI 4.24 to 36.36).Three trials examined the etonogestrel vaginal ring and one examined an etonogestrel implant. One trial showed the ring group had lower mean AUC insulin than the levonorgestrel-COC group (MD -204.51; 95% CI -389.64 to -19.38).Of eight trials of norethisterone preparations, five compared COCs and three compared injectables. In a COC trial, a norethisterone group had smaller mean change in glucose two-hour response than a levonorgestrel-COC group (MD -0.30; 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06). In an injectable study, a group using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate had higher means than the group using norethisterone enanthate for fasting glucose (MD 10.05; 95% CI 3.16 to 16.94), glucose two-hour response (MD 17.00; 95% CI 5.67 to 28.33), and fasting insulin (MD 3.40; 95% CI 2.07 to 4.73).Among five recent trials, two examined newer COCs with different estrogen types. One showed the group with nomegestrel acetate plus 17ß-estradiol had lower means than the levonorgestrel group for incremental AUC glucose (MD -1.43; 95% CI -2.55 to -0.31) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02). Two trials compared extended versus conventional (cyclic) regimens. With a dienogest COC, an extended-use group had greater mean change in AUC glucose (MD 82.00; 95% CI 10.72 to 153.28). In a small trial using two levonorgestrel COCs, the lower-dose group showed smaller mean change in fasting glucose (MD -3.00; 95% CI -5.89 to -0.11), but the obese and normal weight women did not differ significantly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests no major differences in carbohydrate metabolism between different hormonal contraceptives in women without diabetes. We cannot make strong statements due to having few studies that compared the same types of contraceptives. Many trials had small numbers of participants and some had large losses. Many of the earlier studies had limited reporting of methods.We still know very little about women at risk for metabolic problems due to being overweight. More than half of the trials had weight restrictions as inclusion criteria. Only one small trial stratified the groups by body mass index (obese versus normal).

Combination contraceptives: effects on weight.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain is often considered a side effect of combination hormonal contraceptives, and many women and clinicians believe that an association exists. Concern about weight gain can limit the use of this highly effective method of contraception by deterring the initiation of its use and causing early discontinuation among users. However, a causal relationship between combination contraceptives and weight gain has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the review was to evaluate the potential association between combination contraceptive use and changes in weight. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2013, we searched the computerized databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, POPLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies of combination contraceptives, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). For the initial review, we also wrote to known investigators and manufacturers to request information about other published or unpublished trials not discovered in our search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All English-language, randomized controlled trials were eligible if they had at least three treatment cycles and compared a combination contraceptive to a placebo or to a combination contraceptive that differed in drug, dosage, regimen, or study length. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All titles and abstracts located in the literature searches were assessed. Data were entered and analyzed with RevMan. A second author verified the data entered. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean change in weight between baseline and post-treatment measurements using a fixed-effect model. For categorical data, such as the proportion of women who gained or lost more than a specified amount of weight, the Peto odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We found 49 trials that met our inclusion criteria. The trials included 85 weight change comparisons for 52 distinct contraceptive pairs (or placebos). The four trials with a placebo or no intervention group did not find evidence supporting a causal association between combination oral contraceptives or a combination skin patch and weight change. Most comparisons of different combination contraceptives showed no substantial difference in weight. In addition, discontinuation of combination contraceptives because of weight change did not differ between groups where this was studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.

Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Small effects can be difficult to distinguish from bias introduced by study design and analyses. An absence of detailed written protocols and poor documentation of research is common. Information obtained might not be useful or important, and statistical precision or power is often too low or used in a misleading way. Insufficient consideration might be given to both previous and continuing studies. Arbitrary choice of analyses and an overemphasis on random extremes might affect the reported findings. Several problems relate to the research workforce, including failure to involve experienced statisticians and methodologists, failure to train clinical researchers and laboratory scientists in research methods and design, and the involvement of stakeholders with conflicts of interest. Inadequate emphasis is placed on recording of research decisions and on reproducibility of research. Finally, reward systems incentivise quantity more than quality, and novelty more than reliability. We propose potential solutions for these problems, including improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies in progress, standardisation of research efforts, optimisation and training of an experienced and non-conflicted scientific workforce, and reconsideration of scientific reward systems.