Diana Elbourne

CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials: a Korean translation

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

High quality protocols facilitate proper planning, conduct, reporting, and external review of randomised trials, yet their completeness varies and key elements are often not considered. To strengthen good reporting of trial protocols, the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 statement has been updated to incorporate new evidence and emerging perspectives. This SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration document provides users with exemplars of reporting in contemporary trial protocols, contextual elaboration, more detailed guidance on reporting, references to key empirical studies, an expanded checklist, and a link to a website for further information. The document is intended to be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT 2025 statement and serves as a resource for researchers planning a trial and for others interested in trial protocols.

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

Background: Well designed and properly executed randomised trials are considered the most reliable evidence on the benefits of healthcare interventions. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the quality of reporting is not optimal. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was designed to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was first published in 1996, then updated in 2001 and 2010. Here, we present the updated CONSORT 2025 statement, which aims to account for recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the literature and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence related to CONSORT, to generate a list of potential changes to the checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by the lead authors of existing CONSORT extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment), other related reporting guidelines (TIDieR) and recommendations from other sources (e.g., personal communications). The list of potential changes to the checklist was assessed in a large, international, online, three-round Delphi survey involving 317 participants and discussed at a two-day online expert consensus meeting of 30 invited international experts. Results: We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added seven new checklist items, revised three items, deleted one item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomised trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial. To facilitate implementation of CONSORT 2025, we have also developed an expanded version of the CONSORT 2025 checklist, with bullet points eliciting critical elements of each item. Conclusions: Authors, editors, reviewers, and other potential users should use CONSORT 2025 when writing and evaluating manuscripts of randomised trials to ensure that trial reports are clear and transparent.

Critical appraisal of the quality of randomised trials is possible only if their design, conduct, analysis, and results are completely and accurately reported. Without transparent reporting of the methods and results, readers will not be able to fully evaluate the reliability and validity of trial findings. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement aims to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was first published in 1996 and was updated in 2001 and 2010. CONSORT comprises a checklist of essential items that should be included in reports of randomised trials and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through a trial. The CONSORT statement has been updated (CONSORT 2025) to reflect recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users, ensuring that it remains fit for purpose. Here, we present the updated CONSORT explanation and elaboration document, which has been extensively revised and describes the rationale and scientific background for each CONSORT 2025 checklist item and provides published examples of good reporting. The objective is to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of CONSORT 2025 and provide guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials and ensure trial reports are complete, and transparent.

Background Well designed and properly executed randomised trials are considered the most reliable evidence on the benefits of healthcare interventions. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the quality of reporting is not optimal. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was designed to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was first published in 1996, then updated in 2001 and 2010. Here, we present the updated CONSORT 2025 statement, which aims to account for recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users. Methods We conducted a scoping review of the literature and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence related to CONSORT, to generate a list of potential changes to the checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by the lead authors of existing CONSORT extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment), other related reporting guidelines (TIDieR) and recommendations from other sources (eg, personal communications). The list of potential changes to the checklist was assessed in a large, international, online, three-round Delphi survey involving 317 participants and discussed at a two-day online expert consensus meeting of 30 invited international experts. Results We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added seven new checklist items, revised three items, deleted one item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomised trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial. To facilitate implementation of CONSORT 2025, we have also developed an expanded version of the CONSORT 2025 checklist, with bullet points eliciting critical elements of each item. Conclusion Authors, editors, reviewers, and other potential users should use CONSORT 2025 when writing and evaluating manuscripts of randomised trials to ensure that trial reports are clear and transparent.

Background: Non‐inferiority trials comparing different active drugs are often subject to treatment non‐adherence. Intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and per‐protocol (PP) analyses have been advocated in such studies but are not guaranteed to be unbiased in the presence of differential non‐adherence.Methods: The REMoxTB trial evaluated two 4‐month experimental regimens compared with a 6‐month control regimen for newly diagnosed drug‐susceptible TB. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavorable outcome of treatment failure or recurrence within 18 months post‐randomization. We conducted a simulation study based on REMoxTB to assess the performance of statistical methods for handling non‐adherence in non‐inferiority trials, including: ITT and PP analyses, adjustment for observed adherence, multiple imputation (MI) of outcomes, inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting (IPTW), and a doubly‐robust (DR) estimator.Results: When non‐adherence differed between trial arms, ITT, and PP analyses often resulted in non‐trivial bias in the estimated treatment effect, which consequently under‐ or over‐inflated the type I error rate. Adjustment for observed adherence led to similar issues, whereas the MI, IPTW and DR approaches were able to correct bias under most non‐adherence scenarios; they could not always eliminate bias entirely in the presence of unobserved confounding. The IPTW and DR methods were generally unbiased and maintained desired type I error rates and statistical power.Conclusions: When non‐adherence differs between trial arms, ITT and PP analyses can produce biased estimates of efficacy, potentially leading to the acceptance of inferior treatments or efficacious regimens being missed. IPTW and the DR estimator are relatively straightforward methods to supplement ITT and PP approaches.

Background India has made steady progress in improving rates of primary school enrolment but levels of learning achievement remain low. The Support To Rural India’s Public Education System (STRIPES) trial provided evidence that an after-school para-teacher intervention improved numeracy and literacy levels in Telangana, India. The STRIPES2 trial investigates whether such an intervention will have a similar effect on the literacy and numeracy of primary school age children in the Satna District of Madhya Pradesh, India. Methods/design The STRIPES2 trial forms one part of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with villages (clusters) randomised to receive either a health (CHAMPION2) or education (STRIPES2) intervention. Building on the design of the earlier CHAMPION/STRIPES trial, villages receiving the health intervention are controls for the education intervention and vice versa. The primary outcome is a combined literacy and numeracy score. Secondary outcomes include separate scores for literacy and numeracy; caregivers’ engagement with child’s learning; expenditure on education; enrolment in school; parent’s report of school attendance and the cost effectiveness of the intervention. Over 7000 primary school age children have been recruited and randomised in STRIPES2. Discussion This update to the published trial protocol gives a detailed plan for the statistical analysis of the STRIPES 2 trial. Trial registration. Registry of India: CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered on 23 May 2019