Transparent and accurate reporting is key, so that readers can adequately interpreting the results of a study. The aim of this project is to evaluate whether reminding peer reviewers of the most important SPIRIT reporting items (including a short explanation of those items) will result in higher adherence to SPIRIT guidelines in published protocols for RCTS. During the standard peer-review process, peer-reviewers will be randomly allocated to use either (i) a short version of the SPIRIT checklist including the ten most important and poorly reported SPIRIT items ; or (ii) no checklist. The aim is to find an intervention which improves the reporting, making it easier for readers to adequately interpret the presented articles.
The full protocol is available on Open Science Framework where the study was prospectively registered: https://osf.io/z2hm9
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
178
Peer reviewer will be reminded of the following 10 CONSORT items (including a short description): Outcomes (12) Sample size (14) Recruitment (15) Allocation implementation (16 c) Blinding (17 a) Data collection methods (18 a) Data collection methods - retention (18 b) Statistical methods (20 a) Population analysed (20 c) Access to data (29)
Peer review as it is usual practice at the journal
The BMJ Publishing Group
London, United Kingdom
Completeness of reporting
The primary outcome of this study will be the difference of the mean proportion of adequately reported items of the 10 most important and poorly reported SPIRIT items between the two intervention arms.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Completeness of reporting
Mean proportion of adequate reporting of the 10 most important and poorly reported SPIRIT items, considering each sub-item as a separate item.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Completeness of reporting
Mean proportion for each of the 10 most important and poorly reported SPIRIT items separately (including also separate analysis of sub-items).
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year
Time from assigning an academic editor until the first decision (as communicated to the author after the first round of peer-review).
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 months; will be assessed from routinely collected data
Proportion of articles directly rejected after the first round of peer-review
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 months; will be assessed from routinely collected data
Proportion of articles published
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 9 months; will be assessed from routinely collected data
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.