Reporting Methods of Blinding in Randomized Trials Assessing Nonpharmacological Treatments
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 20 February 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 4 (2) , e61
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040061
Abstract
Blinding is a cornerstone of treatment evaluation. Blinding is more difficult to obtain in trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment and frequently relies on “creative” (nonstandard) methods. The purpose of this study was to systematically describe the strategies used to obtain blinding in a sample of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment. We systematically searched in Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing nonpharmacological treatment with blinding, published during 2004 in high-impact-factor journals. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction form. We identified 145 articles, with the method of blinding described in 123 of the reports. Methods of blinding of participants and/or health care providers and/or other caregivers concerned mainly use of sham procedures such as simulation of surgical procedures, similar attention-control interventions, or a placebo with a different mode of administration for rehabilitation or psychotherapy. Trials assessing devices reported various placebo interventions such as use of sham prosthesis, identical apparatus (e.g., identical but inactivated machine or use of activated machine with a barrier to block the treatment), or simulation of using a device. Blinding participants to the study hypothesis was also an important method of blinding. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors relied mainly on centralized assessment of paraclinical examinations, clinical examinations (i.e., use of video, audiotape, photography), or adjudications of clinical events. This study classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could overcome some barriers of blinding in clinical trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment, and provides information for readers assessing the quality of results of such trials.Keywords
This publication has 55 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trials Using a Surgical Intervention Is in Need of Immediate ImprovementAnnals of Surgery, 2006
- Methods of Blinding in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Pharmacologic Treatments: A Systematic ReviewPLoS Medicine, 2006
- Developing a measure of treatment beliefs: The complementary and alternative medicine beliefs inventoryComplementary Therapies in Medicine, 2005
- Characteristic and incidental (placebo) effects in complex interventions such as acupunctureBMJ, 2005
- Patients' evaluation of informed consent to postponed information: cohort studyBMJ, 2004
- Turning a blind eye:Testing the success of blinding and the CONSORT statementBMJ, 2004
- Turning a blind eye: Authors have blinkered view of blindingBMJ, 2004
- Methodologic Issues in Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical InterventionsClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2003
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Published by Elsevier ,1998
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995