Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors

@article{Haahr2006WhoIB,
  title={Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors},
  author={Mette T. Haahr and Asbj{\o}rn Hr{\~o}bjartsson},
  journal={Clinical Trials},
  year={2006},
  volume={3},
  pages={360 - 365}
}
Background Insufficient blinding of persons involved in randomized clinical trials is associated with bias. The appraisal of the risk of bias is difficult without adequate information in trial reports. Purpose We wanted to study how blinding is reported in clinical trials and how lack of reporting relate to lack of blinding. Methods A cohort study of 200 blinded randomized clinical trials published in 2001 randomly sampled from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and a… Expand

Tables and Topics from this paper

Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding.
TLDR
How often randomized clinical trials test the success of blinding, the methods involved and how often blinding is reported as being successful are assessed are assessed. Expand
Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials
TLDR
Blinding of outcome assessors is infrequently used and poorly reported, and increased use of independent assessors could increase the frequency of blinded assessment. Expand
Blinding in Randomized Clinical Trials: Imposed
TLDR
Important methodological aspects of blinding are reviewed, emphasizing terminology, reporting, bias mechanisms, empirical evidence, and the risk of unblinding. Expand
Blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a retrospective study of published trial reports
Objectives To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded. DesignExpand
Unreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in 4 of 10 randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in 1 of 10 trials.
TLDR
About 4 of 10 trials assessed risk of unblinding without reporting such assessments in the trial publication, and approximately 1 in 10 trials identified cases of overt or suspected unblitting without reporting them. Expand
Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory.
TLDR
The reporting on blinding in both trial protocols and publications is often inadequate and it is suggested that international guidelines for the reporting oftrial protocols and public access to protocols should be developed. Expand
Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study
TLDR
No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors, and this results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. Expand
Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors
TLDR
Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient and peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term ‘double-blind’ for different blinding practices. Expand
Blinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and cats.
TLDR
Blinding was commonly used as a means of reducing bias associated with collection and interpretation of data in reports of veterinary RCTs, but most reports of blinding methodology were incomplete and there was no consistency in how blinding terminology was used by authors or interpreted by veterinarians. Expand
A meta-epidemiological study of bias in randomized clinical trials of open and laparoscopic surgery.
TLDR
Lack of blinding significantly altered the treatment effect estimates of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and open surgery, and bias-minimization strategies should be implemented in surgical R CTs where possible to avoid systematic bias. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 10 REFERENCES
In the dark: the reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials.
TLDR
In conclusion, prestigious journals should abandon the term "double blind" and explicitly report the blinding status of the groups involved in RCTs, and clinicians will be left with uncertainty about the validity of R CTs that guide their clinical practice. Expand
An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.
TLDR
Whether concealment of randomization or blinding was used in RCTs that failed to report these bias-reducing strategies is determined to ensure the use of these methodological safeguards in their publications. Expand
Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials.
TLDR
In RCTs in which these methods were not described in the trial reports and would thus have been characterized as "inadequate," investigators reported using methods of random-sequence generation and allocation concealment that would be considered adequate in 77.4 and 78.1% of R CTs, respectively. Expand
Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials.
TLDR
It is suggested that both physicians and textbooks vary greatly in their interpretations and definitions of single, double, and triple blinding. Expand
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
TLDR
The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols and Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. Expand
Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals
TLDR
The epidemiology and reporting of methodological details for all 519 PubMed-indexed randomised trials published in December, 2000 were assessed, and power calculation, primary outcomes, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and handling of attrition were each adequately described. Expand
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
TLDR
The concept of study quality and the methods used to assess quality are discussed and the methodology for both the assessment of quality and its incorporation into systematic reviews and meta-analysis is discussed. Expand
The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo‐controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial
TLDR
There were no significant differences in the time to treatment failure or in the proportions of patients improved, stable, or worse between the group II and group III patients who correctly guessed their treatment assignments and those who did not. Expand
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials
TLDR
The revised CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results. Expand
Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.
TLDR
Although several mail survey techniques are associated with higher response rates, response rates to published mail surveys tend to be moderate, and investigators, journal editors, and readers should devote more attention to assessments of bias, and less to specific response rate thresholds. Expand