Clinical trials require numerous documents to be written -- protocols, consent forms, clinical study reports and others. Large language models (LLMs) offer the potential to rapidly generate first versions of these documents, however there are concerns about the quality of their output Here we report an evaluation of LLMs in generating parts of one such document, clinical trial protocols. We find that an offthe-shelf LLM delivers reasonable results, especially when assessing content relevance and the correct use of terminology. However, deficiencies remain: specifically clinical thinking and logic, and appropriate use of references. To improve performance, we used retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to prompt an LLM with accurate up-to-date information. As a result of using RAG, the writing quality of the LLM improves substantially, which has implications for the practical useability of LLMs in clinical trial-related writing.