Blinded trials taken to the test:: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding

被引:129
作者
Hrobjartsson, A.
Forfang, E.
Haahr, M. T.
Als-Nielsen, B.
Brorson, S.
机构
[1] Rigshosp, Nordic Cochrane Ctr, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Amager Univ Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
double-blind method; statistical data interpretation; randomized controlled trials/*methods/standards;
D O I
10.1093/ije/dym020
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background Blinding can reduce bias in randomized clinical trials, but blinding procedures may be unsuccessful. Our aim was to assess how often randomized clinical trials test the success of blinding, the methods involved and how often blinding is reported as being successful. Methods We analysed a random sample of blinded randomized clinical trials indexed in the The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published in 2001. We identified 1599 blinded trials, and noted if they had conducted any test for the success of blinding. We also selected 200 trials randomly that did not report any such test, and sent a questionnaire to the corresponding authors asking them if they had conducted any tests. Results Thirty-one out of 1599 trials (2%) reported tests for the success of blinding. Test methods varied, and reporting was generally incomplete. Blinding was considered successful in 14 out of the 31 trials (45%) and unclear in 10 (32%). of the seven trials (23%) reporting unsuccessful blinding the risk of a biased trial result was either not addressed or was discounted in six cases. We received 130 questionnaires from trial authors (65%) of which 15 (12%) informed that they had conducted, but not published, tests. Conclusions Blinding is rarely tested. Test methods vary, and the reporting of tests, and test results, is incomplete. There is a considerable methodological uncertainty how best to assess blinding, and an urgent need for improved methodology and improved reporting.
引用
收藏
页码:654 / 663
页数:10
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]   Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency paediatric procedural sedation [J].
Acworth, JP ;
Purdie, D ;
Clark, RC .
EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2001, 18 (01) :39-45
[2]   Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials - A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? [J].
Als-Nielsen, B ;
Chen, WD ;
Gluud, C ;
Kjaergard, LL .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 290 (07) :921-928
[3]  
ALSNIELSEN B, 12 COCHR C OTT
[4]   RANDOMIZATION AND BASE-LINE COMPARISONS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
DORE, CJ .
LANCET, 1990, 335 (8682) :149-153
[5]   Acute mountain sickness; Prophylactic benefits of antioxidant vitamin supplementation at high altitude [J].
Bailey, DM ;
Davies, B .
HIGH ALTITUDE MEDICINE & BIOLOGY, 2001, 2 (01) :21-29
[6]   Assessment of blinding in clinical trials [J].
Bang, HJ ;
Ni, LY ;
Davis, CE .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 2004, 25 (02) :143-156
[7]   A randomized trial of zinc nasal spray for the treatment of upper respiratory illness in adults [J].
Belongia, EA ;
Berg, R ;
Liu, KJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2001, 111 (02) :103-108
[8]   Lamotrigine therapy for autistic disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial [J].
Belsito, KM ;
Law, PA ;
Kirk, KS ;
Landa, RJ ;
Zimmerman, AW .
JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS, 2001, 31 (02) :175-181
[9]   A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable [J].
Boutron, I ;
Estellat, C ;
Ravaud, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 58 (12) :1220-1226
[10]   Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials [J].
Boutron, I ;
Tubach, F ;
Giraudeau, B ;
Ravaud, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (06) :543-550