SPIRIT extension and elaboration for n-of-1 trials: SPENT 2019 checklist

Abstract

Randomised clinical trials are the preferred method for establishing average intervention effects for groups. Using key methodological elements of these trials, n-of-1 trials provide rigorous evidence of intervention effects for individuals. N-of-1 trials are particularly useful for situations where randomised clinical trials are not always feasible or appropriate, such as for individuals with rare diseases, comorbid conditions, or using concurrent treatments. N-of-1 trials enhance precision when intervention effects are heterogeneous between individuals. Here, we describe an extension to the SPIRIT (standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials) guideline, SPENT (SPIRIT extension for n-of-1 trials), to improve the completeness and transparency of n-of-1 trial protocols. SPENT is also aligned with the CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) extension for n-of-1 trials (CENT). The guideline development group followed the development strategy for reporting guidelines endorsed by the EQUATOR Network. SPENT began with a systematic review for n-of-1 protocol recommendations. After analysis to identify possible SPENT items, a three round Delphi process was implemented, with international participation involving researchers, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. This was followed by in-person meetings and email discussion of the SPENT group to achieve consensus. SPENT has 14 extension items specific to n-of-1 trials, a checklist for n-of-1 trial protocol abstracts, and additional guidance for eight SPIRIT items where trialists could encounter issues specific to n-of-1 trials. This paper describes the rationale and development process, and provides examples and explanations for each SPENT checklist item.

Internet-Based Multimodal Pain Program With Telephone Support for Adults With Chronic Temporomandibular Disorder Pain: Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

“…Also, conversion to a hybrid trial model with follow-up data collection online could make it more convenient to participate in the study and increase retention. Finally, novel study designs such as n -of-1 or noninferiority trials should be considered to optimize the quality and quantity of data acquired [ 46 , 47 ].…”

Investigating hsCRP as a clinical inflammation marker for human Bisphenol A food contamination offers protocol suggestions for conducting replicable, causal dietary intervention studies

“…Given that the use of clinical blood tests as possible direct human health effects indicators of environmental chemical contamination is an unknown field, investigators felt that a small proof-of-concept trial (n-of-1) would be sufficient to test the validity of the concept and protocols before beginning a larger, more expensive study. N-of-1 investigations have found wide acceptance and success in biomedical science 146 and are proposed as a main tactic in precision medicine 147 and pharmaceutical research.…”

Systematic Review of N-of-1 Studies in Rare Genetic Neurodevelopmental Disorders

“…As parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often not feasible in these small and heterogeneous populations, a new methodological framework needs to be developed. N-of-1 studies are randomized, controlled, multiple crossover trials in a single patient ( Figure 1; Table 1) (5,6) and closely follow indications of causality between agent and effect (7,8).…”

“…Furthermore, the personalized approach has the potential of maximizing treatment adherence (5,(12)(13)(14). Now guidelines on the design and reporting of N-of-1 trials are available (6,8,15,16), specific information is needed to improve N-of-1 studies in patients with rare neurodevelopmental doses of the same intervention) were included in the review. Genetic neurodevelopmental disorders were defined as disorders with a genetic etiology affecting the nervous system in the early development.…”