A quality analysis of clinical anaesthesia study protocols from the Chinese clinical trials registry according to the SPIRIT statement

Lei Yang; Shouming Chen; Di Yang; Jiajin Li; Taixiang Wu; Yunxia Zuo

doi:10.18632/oncotarget.24982

Oncotarget

Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science.

Its scope is unique. The term "oncotarget" encompasses all molecules, pathways, cellular functions, cell types, and even tissues that can be viewed as targets relevant to cancer as well as other diseases. The term was introduced in the inaugural Editorial, Introducing Oncotarget.

As of January 1, 2022, Oncotarget has shifted to a continuous publishing model. Papers will now be published continuously within yearly volumes in their final and complete form and then quickly released to Pubmed.

Subscribe to receive alerts once a paper has been published by Oncotarget.

Impact Journals, LLC is the publisher of Oncotarget: www.impactjournals.com.

Impact Journals is a member of the Wellcome Trust List of Compliant Publishers.

Impact Journals is a member of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.

On December 23, 2022, Oncotarget server experienced a DDoS attack. As a result, Oncotarget site was inaccessible for a few hours. Oncotarget team swiftly dealt with the situation and took it under control. This malicious action will be reported to the FBI.

Clinical Research Papers:

A quality analysis of clinical anaesthesia study protocols from the Chinese clinical trials registry according to the SPIRIT statement

Lei Yang, Shouming Chen, Di Yang, Jiajin Li, Taixiang Wu and Yunxia Zuo _

PDF | HTML | How to cite

Oncotarget. 2018; 9:24830-24836. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24982

Metrics: PDF 1118 views | HTML 1537 views | ?

Abstract

Lei Yang1,*, Shouming Chen2,*, Di Yang3, Jiajin Li4, Taixiang Wu5 and Yunxia Zuo6

1Department of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

2Department of Anaesthesiology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

3Department of Anaesthesiology, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, Chengdu, China

4Medical Insurance Office, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

5Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, Chengdu, China

6Department of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

*These authors have contributed equally to this work

Correspondence to:

Yunxia Zuo, email: [email protected]

Keywords: clinical study; protocol; anaesthesia; SPIRIT; quality analysis

Abbreviations: SPIRIT: Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Intervention Trials; WHO ICTRP: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; ChiCTR: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry; N/A: Not applicable

Received: January 03, 2018 Accepted: February 27, 2018 Published: May 15, 2018

ABSTRACT

Objective: To learn about the overall quality of clinical anaesthesia study protocols from the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry and to discuss the way to improve study protocol quality.

Methods: We defined completeness of each sub-item in SPIRIT as N/A (not applicable) or with a score of 0, 1, or 2. For each protocol, we calculated the proportion of adequately reported items (score = 2 and N/A) and unreported items (score = 0). Protocol quality was determined according to the proportion of reported items, with values >50% indicating high quality. Protocol quality was determined according to the proportion of reported items. For each sub-item in SPIRIT, we calculated the adequately reported rate (percentage of all protocols with score 2 and NA on one sub-item) as well as the unreported rate (percentage of all protocols with score 0 on one sub-item).

Results: Total 126 study protocols were available for assessment. Among these, 88.1% were assessed as being of low quality. By comparison, the percentage of low-quality protocols was 88.9% after the publication of the SPIRIT statement. Among the 51 SPIRIT sub-items, 18 sub-items had an unreported rate above 90% while 16 had a higher adequately reported rate than an unreported rate.

Conclusions: The overall quality of clinical anaesthesia study protocols registered in the ChiCTR was poor. A mandatory protocol upload and self-check based on the SPIRIT statement during the trial registration process may improve protocol quality in the future.

All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 24982

Publication Alerts

Clinical Research Papers:

A quality analysis of clinical anaesthesia study protocols from the Chinese clinical trials registry according to the SPIRIT statement

Abstract