Literature DB >> 18778914

Radiographs of hip fractures were digitally altered to mask surgeons to the type of implant without compromising the reliability of quality ratings or making the rating process more difficult.

Paul J Karanicolas1, Mohit Bhandari, Stephen D Walter, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Gordon H Guyatt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To devise and test techniques to blind outcome assessors in trials of hip fracture fixation. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We developed three techniques (Blackout, Subtraction, and Overlay) to mask radiographs of hip fractures fixated with cancellous screws or dynamic hip screws. Fifty orthopedic trauma surgeons each assessed 32 radiographs blinded with each technique.
RESULTS: All techniques achieved low rates of correct identification of screw type (14.9% for Blackout, 26.9% for Subtraction, 22.1% for Overlay) and high proportions of "don't know" responses (72.3%, 48.4%, 52.8%, respectively). The interrater reliability of reduction quality in the blinded images (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.55-0.57) was similar to the reliability of the unblinded radiographs (ICC=0.60). Surgeons perceived 6.9% of the Overlay images as much more difficult to rate than unblinded radiographs, compared with 9.7% of Subtraction images (P=0.25) and 28.0% of Blackout images (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Three techniques of blinding radiographs of femoral neck fractures successfully mask surgeons to the type of implant fixated, do not compromise reliability of reduction ratings, and do not make rating most radiographs more difficult. Trialists should explore creative approaches to optimize blinding when designing trials, and should incorporate rigorous approaches to testing blinding success.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18778914     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  6 in total

1.  Practical tips for surgical research: blinding: who, what, when, why, how?

Authors:  Paul J Karanicolas; Forough Farrokhyar; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 2.  Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors.

Authors:  Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Frida Emanuelsson; Britta Tendal; Jørgen Hilden; Isabelle Boutron; Philippe Ravaud; Stig Brorson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Measurement and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes in surgery: an opportunity for improvement.

Authors:  Paul J Karanicolas; Kai Bickenbach; Shiva Jayaraman; Andrea L Pusic; Daniel G Coit; Gordon H Guyatt; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials.

Authors:  Brennan C Kahan; Sunita Rehal; Suzie Cro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Digital blinding of radiographs to mask allocation in a randomized control trial.

Authors:  Gerard P Slobogean; Lukasz Soswa; Giuliana Rotunno; Peter J O'Brien; Kelly A Lefaivre
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2017-10-18

Review 6.  Blinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big Picture.

Authors:  Thomas F Monaghan; Christina W Agudelo; Syed N Rahman; Alan J Wein; Jason M Lazar; Karel Everaert; Roger R Dmochowski
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.430

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.