As in other methodology standards, it would be useful to clarify how these requirements apply to various documents, who should assess them, and how they should be assessed. For example, is the information described in this document expected in the application for funding, the protocol, and also the final research report? How can one tell whether investigators have complied with these standards?

Articulating expectations more precisely and objectively could facilitate better research conduct and reporting, and better monitoring. Although these standards describe best practices, it is unclear what investigators, grant reviewers, program officers (e.g., reviewing protocols), and peer reviewers (e.g., reviewing final research reports) should do with general statements like “For a usual care comparator in use with suboptimal implementation, researchers may want to consider supplemental research that improves the usual care comparator’s implementation and reduces variation, prior to employing the practice as a CER study comparator”.

The proposed standards overlap other standards, including those for complex interventions. References to other standards raise the question of whether new standards are needed. Please consider whether they might be consolidated; for example, usual care might be mentioned in the existing standards where applicable.
Anonymous
Researcher, health/medical
Representing my own views