Literature DB >> 15837450

Changes in beliefs identify unblinding in randomized controlled trials: a method to meet CONSORT guidelines.

Judy R Rees1, Timothy J Wade, Deborah A Levy, John M Colford, Joan F Hilton.   

Abstract

Double-blinded trials are often considered the gold standard for research, but significant bias may result from unblinding of participants and investigators. Although the CONSORT guidelines discuss the importance of reporting "evidence that blinding was successful", it is unclear what constitutes appropriate evidence. Among studies reporting methods to evaluate blinding effectiveness, many have compared groups with respect to the proportions correctly identifying their intervention at the end of the trial. Instead, we reasoned that participants' beliefs, and not their correctness, are more directly associated with potential bias, especially in relation to self-reported health outcomes. During the Water Evaluation Trial performed in northern California in 1999, we investigated blinding effectiveness by sequential interrogation of participants about their "blinded" intervention assignment (active or placebo). Irrespective of group, participants showed a strong tendency to believe they had been assigned to the active intervention; this translated into a statistically significant intergroup difference in the correctness of participants' beliefs, even at the start of the trial before unblinding had a chance to occur. In addition, many participants (31%) changed their belief during the trial, suggesting that assessment of belief at a single time does not capture unblinding. Sequential measures based on either two or all eight questionnaires identified significant group-related differences in belief patterns that were not identified by the single, cross-sectional measure. In view of the relative insensitivity of cross-sectional measures, the minimal additional information in more than two assessments of beliefs and the risk of modifying participants' beliefs by repeated questioning, we conclude that the optimal means of assessing unblinding is an intergroup comparison of the change in beliefs (and not their correctness) between the start and end of a randomized controlled trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15837450     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2004.11.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  6 in total

1.  The Sonoma water evaluation trial: a randomized drinking water intervention trial to reduce gastrointestinal illness in older adults.

Authors:  John M Colford; Joan F Hilton; Catherine C Wright; Benjamin F Arnold; Sona Saha; Timothy J Wade; James Scott; Joseph N S Eisenberg
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-09-17       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Towards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up-to-date review.

Authors:  Jafar Kolahi; Heejung Bang; Jongbae Park
Journal:  Community Dent Oral Epidemiol       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 3.383

3.  The Use of Aspirin to Reduce the Risk of Thrombotic Events in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Tiago Lemos Cerqueira; Nathalie Monique Vandevelde; Armando Fartolino Guerrero; Clara Krystal Pérez Fermin; Ricardo Wang; Evelin Elfriede Balbino; Janis L Breeze; Paola Gonzalez Mego; Daniele Argentina Silva; Walid Ezzeldin Omer
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2018-08-09

4.  Random Guess and Wishful Thinking are the Best Blinding Scenarios.

Authors:  Heejung Bang
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2016-05-07

5.  Effectiveness and adequacy of blinding in the moderation of pain outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analyses of dry needling trials.

Authors:  Felicity A Braithwaite; Julie L Walters; Lok Sze Katrina Li; G Lorimer Moseley; Marie T Williams; Maureen P McEvoy
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Mechanisms of Perceived Treatment Assignment and Subsequent Expectancy Effects in a Double Blind Placebo Controlled RCT of Major Depression.

Authors:  Johannes A C Laferton; Sagar Vijapura; Lee Baer; Alisabet J Clain; Abigail Cooper; George Papakostas; Lawrence H Price; Linda L Carpenter; Audrey R Tyrka; Maurizio Fava; David Mischoulon
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 4.157

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.