Frank W. Rockhold

The webinar will be an open exchange among applied statisticians working across various fields. This exchange will broadly encompass the experiences and skills participants gained on the job, enhancing their use of statistics in their respective fields. Participants will pinpoint areas for improvement and tips for becoming proficient applied statisticians.

Introduction: Timely dissemination of clinical trial results is essential to advance knowledge, guide practice, and improve outcomes, yet many trials remain unpublished, limiting impact. We examine what drives publication and timelines across three major clinical domains. Methods: We analyzed study design and factors associated with dissemination of interventional trials, focusing on cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and COVID-19. A total of 10,785 trials (CVD: 5929; cancer: 4210; COVID-19: 646) were linked to PubMed publications using National Clinical Trial identifiers. Study design, operational, and transparency-related features were assessed as predictors of time to publication, defined as the interval from study completion to first publication, using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: COVID-19 trials had the highest publication rate (49.6%), followed by CVD (42.3%) and cancer (32.9%), likely reflecting pandemic-related prioritization. Faster publication was associated with larger enrollment, more sites, result posting, randomization, DMC presence, and higher blinding levels (all p < 0.05). Slower publication was linked to supportive care or diagnostic trials (CVD), basic science (cancer), and later COVID-19 trial completion. In subgroups, U.S. facility presence (CVD) and phase 3 design (cancer) predicted faster publication, while healthy volunteer inclusion (CVD) predicted slower publication. Among DMC trials, more secondary outcomes were linked to faster publication across all disease areas. Conclusions: Key study design and operational factors consistently predict whether and when trials are published. Strengthening methodological rigor, result reporting, and multi-site collaboration may accelerate timely dissemination into peer-reviewed literature.

Introduction Distal radius fractures are the most common fractures seen in the emergency department in children in the USA. However, no established or standardised guidelines exist for the optimal management of completely displaced fractures in younger children. The proposed multicentre randomised trial will compare functional outcomes between children treated with fracture reduction under sedation versus children treated with simple immobilisation. Methods and analysis Participants aged 4–10 years presenting to the emergency department with 100% dorsally translated metaphyseal fractures of the radius less than 5 cm from the distal radial physis will be recruited for the study. Those patients with open fractures, other ipsilateral arm fractures (excluding ulna), pathologic fractures, bone diseases, or neuromuscular or metabolic conditions will be excluded. Participants who agree to enrol in the trial will be randomly assigned via a minimal sufficient balance algorithm to either sedated reduction or in situ immobilisation. A sample size of 167 participants per arm will provide at least 90% power to detect a difference in the primary outcome of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity computer adaptive test scores of 4 points at 1 year from treatment. Primary analyses will employ a linear mixed model to estimate the treatment effect at 1 year. Secondary outcomes include additional measures of perceived pain, complications, radiographic angulation, satisfaction and additional procedures (revisions, refractures, reductions and reoperations). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the following local Institutional Review Boards: Advarra, serving as the single Institutional Review Board, approved the study (Pro00062090) in April 2022. The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, ON, Canada) did not rely on Advarra and received separate approval from their local Research Ethics Board (REB; REB number: 1000079992) on 19 July 2023. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international conference meetings. Trial registration number NCT05131685.

Since the first decentralized clinical trial (DCT) was conducted in 2011, there has been an increased usage of DCT due to its benefits of patient‐centricity and generalizability of findings. This trend was further expedited by the global COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified 23 case studies across various therapeutic areas and grouped them into different categories according to their purposes—by necessity, for operational benefits, to address unique research questions, to validate innovative digital endpoints, or to validate decentralization as a clinical research platform. We leveraged the estimand framework from ICH E9(R1) including its five attributes (population, treatment, variable, intercurrent event, and summary measure) to critically assess their design and conduct. Common trends, opportunities, and challenges were reported along with recommendations for future DCT. Of note, intercurrent events and associated handling strategies are largely not present when reporting DCT. This is an area that can impact study conclusions and require more dedicated efforts when designing new DCTs.

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

The protocol of a randomized 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. Here, we aimed to systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomized trial. 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. 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 enrollment, 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. 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.