Jesse A. Berlin

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: Famotidine has been posited as a potential treatment for COVID-19. We compared the incidence of COVID-19 outcomes (i.e., death; and death or intensive services use) among hospitalized famotidine users vs. proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) users, hydroxychloroquine users or famotidine non-users separately. Methods: We constructed a retrospective cohort study using data from COVID-19 Premier Hospital electronic health records. Study population were COVID-19 hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older. Famotidine, PPI and hydroxychloroquine exposure groups were defined as patients dispensed any medication containing one of the three drugs on the day of admission. The famotidine non-user group was derived from the same source population with no history of exposure to any drug with famotidine as an active ingredient prior to or on the day of admission. Time-at-risk was defined based on the intention-to-treat principle starting 1 day after admission to 30 days after admission. For each study comparison group, we fit a propensity score (PS) model through large-scale regularized B logistic regression. The outcome was modeled using a survival model. Results: We identified 2193 users of PPI, 5950 users of the hydroxychloroquine, 1816 users of famotidine and 26,820 non-famotidine users. After PS stratification, the hazard ratios for death were as follows: famotidine vs no famotidine HR 1.03 (0.89-1.18); vs PPIs: HR 1.14 (0.94-1.39); vs hydroxychloroquine:1.03 (0.85-1.24). Similar results were observed for the risk of death or intensive services use. Conclusion: We found no evidence of a reduced risk of COVID-19 outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who used famotidine compared to those who did not or compared to PPI or hydroxychloroquine users.

Objective: Observational evidence suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk for acute pancreatitis (AP) versus those without T2DM. A small number of AP events were reported in clinical trials of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin, though no imbalances were observed between treatment groups. This observational study evaluated risk of AP among new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of six classes of other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs). Methods: Three US claims databases were analyzed based on a prespecified protocol approved by the European Medicines Agency. Propensity score adjustment controlled for imbalances in baseline covariates. Cox regression models estimated the hazard ratio of AP with canagliflozin compared with other AHAs using on-treatment (primary) and intent-to-treat approaches. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of findings. Results: Across the three databases, there were between 12,023-80,986 new users of canagliflozin; the unadjusted incidence rates of AP (per 1000 person-years) were between 1.5-2.2 for canagliflozin and 1.1-6.6 for other AHAs. The risk of AP was generally similar for new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, and other AHAs, with no consistent between-treatment differences observed across databases. Intent-to-treat and sensitivity analysis findings were qualitatively consistent with on-treatment findings. Conclusions: In this large observational study, incidence rates of AP in patients with T2DM treated with canagliflozin or other AHAs were generally similar, with no evidence suggesting that canagliflozin is associated with increased risk of AP compared with other AHAs.

Kaplan and colleagues report the findings of 2 studies that were part of a randomized clinical trial that aimed to determine whether a combined intervention for