Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials.
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 18 April 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 285 (15) , 2000-2003
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.2000
Abstract
To assess the validity of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), clinicians should note whether participants, health care providers, data collectors, and those assessing occurrence of target events of interest (judicial assessors of outcomes) are blind to participant allocation to treatment or control.1,2 Some methodologists have suggested that allocation should also be concealed from data analysts and personnel writing the paper.3,4 Authors of RCTs frequently use the terms "single," "double," and "triple" blind to communicate the blinding status of persons involved in the trials. We suspected that physicians and textbooks vary in their interpretations and definitions of these terms. Therefore, we surveyed physicians and systematically reviewed textbooks to test this hypothesis. A review of 200 RCTs provided an estimate of the clarity with which investigators identify who is blinded in studies they describe as single-, double-, and triple-blind.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Published by Elsevier ,1998
- CLINICAL BIOSTATISTICS. AN INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE.Statistics in Medicine, 1996
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA, 1996
- Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscriptsControlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: MedicalStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- Effect of encouragement on walking test performance.Thorax, 1984
- The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis.Circulation, 1981
- Angina Pectoris and the Placebo EffectNew England Journal of Medicine, 1979
- Ascorbic acid for the common cold. A prophylactic and therapeutic trialPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1975