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

Were clinical trial practices in East Germany questionable?

Oct 23, 2014

Clinical trials carried out in the former East Germany in the second half of the 20th century were not always with the full knowledge or understanding of participants with some questionable practices taking place, according ...

Schumacher's doctor sees progress after injury

Oct 23, 2014

A French physician who treated Michael Schumacher for nearly six months after the Formula One champion struck his head in a ski accident says he is no longer in a coma and predicted a possible recovery within three years.

User comments