Transparent reporting of dog-assisted intervention (DAI) research is important to support critical appraisal and interpretation of study designs and results. DAIs, in which a dog plays a role in the delivery of therapeutic intervention to enhance the wellbeing and support of individuals, have specific methodological considerations. However, reporting of DAI trial designs and results are suboptimal, preventing the development of a robust evidence base to guide research and practice in this area. To develop consensus-based extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2025 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2025 Statement for DAI research. Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework a four-phase, consensus-based approach was used, including: 1) a systematic review of DAI Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); 2) a three-round Delphi survey (n = 83; n = 74; n = 71 respectively); 3) consensus workshops with experts in DAI research and/or clinical trial design and reporting (n = 7), and 4) checklist piloting and finalisation. The systematic review (phase 1) identified 85 shortcomings in reporting DAI (44 applied to SPIRIT and 41 to CONSORT) to include in the extension development. These shortcomings formed the basis of the items on the three-round DELPHI survey that followed. In the end, 96 extension items reached consensus for consideration (phase 2). The concepts were further refined and translated into specific extension item wording through a comprehensive review process led by the core team in collaboration with leading DAI experts (phase 3). This resulted in 71 extensions for DAI research reporting (36 applied to SPIRIT and 35 applied to CONSORT). The items were piloted (phase 4), and appropriate examples sought for a future explanation and elaboration document (not reported here). The new SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions are hoped to enhance the reporting, as well as conduct, understanding and interpretation of DAI trials.
Hall et al. (Mon,) studied this question.