SPIRIT 2013 clinical trial protocol guidelines issued

SPIRIT 2013 clinical trial protocol guidelines issued
A panel of experts, including trial investigators, trial coordinators, and representatives from ethics and regulatory agencies, has developed the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials 2013 guidelines for the minimum content of a clinical trial, according to a statement published online Jan. 8 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

(HealthDay)—A panel of experts, including trial investigators, trial coordinators, and representatives from ethics and regulatory agencies, has developed the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 guidelines for the minimum content of a clinical trial, according to a statement published online Jan. 8 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Noting that existing guidelines for protocols vary in their scope and recommendation, seldom describe development, and rarely cite stakeholder involvement or evidence to support their recommendations, An-Wen Chan, M.D., D.Phil., of the University of Toronto, and colleagues developed a 33-item SPIRIT checklist to serve as a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The authors collaborated with 115 key stakeholders, including trial investigators; ; and representatives from research ethics, industry, and regulatory agencies.

The authors report that the checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials, with a focus on content, and recommends a full description of the planned trial. The SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate drafting of protocols by offering a standard for content. The transparency and completeness of trial protocols would be enhanced by adherence to SPIRIT, benefiting investigators, trial participants, funders, ethics committees, and other relevant parties.

"An extensive range of stakeholders could benefit from widespread use of the SPIRIT 2013 statement and its explanatory paper. Pilot-testing and informal feedback have shown that it is particularly valuable for trial investigators when they draft their protocols," the authors write. "It can also serve as a for new investigators, peer reviewers, and research ethics committee or institutional review board members."

Several authors disclosed to the pharmaceutical industry.

More information: Abstract
Full Text

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Extensive publication bias for Phase I drug trials

Feb 18, 2009

A study published in this week's issue of the open-access journal PLoS Medicine suggests that, in comparison to other types of trials, the results of Phase I drug trials are far less likely to be published.

New migraine clinical trial guidelines

Jan 24, 2012

Experts from the International Headache Society (IHS) have developed new recommendations for conduct of acute and preventive migraine clinical trials. The third edition of Migraine Clinical Trials Guidelines is now available ...

Recommended for you

The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons

9 hours ago

"Make sure you play fairly," often say parents to their kids. In fact, children do not need encouragement to be fair, it is a unique feature of human social life, which emerges in childhood. When given the o ...

Non-stop PET/CT scan provides accurate images

Sep 18, 2014

Siemens is improving PET/CT imaging and data quality while reducing radiation exposure. The Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT scanner is a new positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) system that, ...

Experts: Chopin's heart shows signs of TB

Sep 17, 2014

The preserved heart of composer Frederic Chopin contains signs of tuberculosis and possibly some other lung disease, medical experts said Wednesday.

User comments