Methods of Blinding in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Pharmacologic Treatments: A Systematic Review
Open Access
- 31 October 2006
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 3 (10) , e425
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030425
Abstract
Blinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments. We undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events. This review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmalogic trials.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trialAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2005
- Co-Administration of Nitric Oxide-Aspirin (NCX-4016) and Aspirin Prevents Platelet and Monocyte Activation and Protects Against Gastric Damage Induced by Aspirin in HumansJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2004
- Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trialsBMJ, 2004
- Comparison of Ximelagatran with Warfarin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Total Knee ReplacementNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- Analgesic Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine and Morphine on Postamputation PainAnesthesiology, 2002
- Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got whatThe Lancet, 2002
- Is the Placebo Powerless? An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo With no TreatmentObstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 2001
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Published by Elsevier ,1998
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995