Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 22, 2026

Implementing In-bed Cycle Ergometry for Mechanically Ventilated Patients using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System
Published on: July 7, 2026
Effectiveness of a structured template to improve completeness of reporting randomised trial protocols: randomised
David Blanco1, David Chen2, Aïda Cadellans-Arróniz3
1Department of Physiotherapy, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08195 Barcelona, Spain dblanco@uic.es.
Objective:
To evaluate whether providing authors with a manuscript template structured according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2025 reporting guideline for use during revision improves the completeness of reporting in randomised trial protocols.
Design:
Randomised controlled trial.
Setting:
BMJ Open.
Population:
70 of 74 manuscripts screened between 29 April and 27 May 2025 that reported randomised controlled trial protocols with a decision of minor or major revision after the first round of peer review were randomly allocated (1:1) using an R generated sequence. Authors were not informed of the study.
Interventions:
Handling editors asked the intervention group authors to use a SPIRIT based manuscript template when preparing their first revision. The template included structured subheadings corresponding to SPIRIT 2025 items, along with guidance on reporting. Editorial decisions were not conditional on use of the template. Control group manuscripts underwent standard peer review.
Main Outcome Measures:
The primary outcome was completeness of reporting score in the revised manuscript (adjusted for baseline), calculated as the mean of 11 SPIRIT items that are frequently inadequately reported (each scored 0, 0.5, or 1) and linearly rescaled to a 0-10 score. After submission of their first revision, authors in the intervention group completed an online survey. The survey included both fixed response and open ended questions designed to capture the authors' perceptions of ease of use, helpfulness, and any challenges encountered when using the template. Secondary outcomes included mean completeness of reporting scores for each item, median time to submission of the revised manuscript, and authors' experiences of using the template. Outcome assessors, but not editors or investigators, were masked.
Results:
Of the 70 manuscripts randomised (35 in each group), all were analysed, with no loss to follow-up. In the intervention group, completeness of reporting in randomised trial protocols improved by 0.61 points (95% confidence interval 0.20 to 1.01) compared with the control group, with mean (standard deviation) scores increasing from 5.42 (1.07) to 6.70 (1.23) and 5.77 (1.19) to 6.32 (0.94), respectively. The largest improvements were observed for recruitment, data collection methods, and access to data. Median time to submission of the first revision was similar between the intervention and control groups (27.10 v 29.86 days, respectively). Data on harms were not systematically collected. Among 14 of 35 survey respondents (40%), many (8/13, 62%) reported the template as time consuming and some (5/13, 39%) as burdensome. Most respondents, however, found it easy to use (10/13, 77%), helpful for improving the manuscript (9/13, 69%), and reassuring for adherence to SPIRIT (13/13, 100%).
Conclusions:
Providing authors of randomised controlled trials with a SPIRIT based template during manuscript revision modestly improved the completeness of reporting in the trial protocols without extending revision times.
Trial Registration:
Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/C4YQZ.
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Types of Reports III: Telephone and Verbal Reports
Here's an overview of each type:
Telephone Orders
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Blinding