Literature DB >> 20851942

Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial: detailed analysis of blinding efficacy.

Waleed Brinjikji1, Bryan A Comstock, Patrick J Heagerty, Jeffrey G Jarvik, David F Kallmes.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform a detailed analysis of blinding efficacy in the Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST) to determine any factors associated with patient unblinding.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-one patients were enrolled in this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved trial and were randomized to vertebroplasty (n = 68) or control intervention (n = 63). At multiple times up to 1 month, patients guessed their treatment allocation (vertebroplasty or control) with a forced-choice response. Patients offered a confidence level (scale, 0-10) for each guess and, when possible, a reason for their guess. Univariable logistic regression models were used to test for an association between baseline characteristics of the patients and correctly guessing their randomized treatment assignment. A two-sample t test was used to determine whether change in pain score differed between patients who guessed their treatment was vertebroplasty versus those who guessed their treatment was control intervention. Qualitative reasons for guesses were tabulated according to treatment assignment and guess.
RESULTS: Recruitment site was the only baseline factor significantly associated with guessing treatment correctly at 14 days (P < .01). Between the control and vertebroplasty groups, a total of 54 patients offered 64 reasons for their guesses, with 16 (25%) reasons based on procedural experiences. Control patients guessing vertebroplasty had significantly greater pain improvement at days 14 and 30 than did those guessing control (day 14, P = .02; day 30, P < .001). In the vertebroplasty group, no relationship between change in pain and patient guess was noted.
CONCLUSION: A number of factors were associated with the ability of patients to guess their treatment allocation correctly-namely, treatment effect (in the control group only), study treatment site, and baseline pain duration. Procedural experiences rarely affected perceived treatment in INVEST.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20851942     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  6 in total

1.  A causal model for joint evaluation of placebo and treatment-specific effects in clinical trials.

Authors:  Zhiwei Zhang; Richard M Kotz; Chenguang Wang; Shiling Ruan; Martin Ho
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Treatment assignment guesses by study participants in a double-blind dose escalation clinical trial of saw palmetto.

Authors:  Jeannette Y Lee; Page Moore; John Kusek; Michael Barry
Journal:  J Altern Complement Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.579

3.  Sample size calculations for blinding assessment.

Authors:  Victoria Landsman; Mark Fillery; Howard Vernon; Heejung Bang
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 1.051

4.  Joint Estimation of Treatment and Placebo Effects in Clinical Trials with Longitudinal Blinding Assessments.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Zhiwei Zhang; R Jason Schroeder; Martin Ho; Bo Zhang; Cynthia Long; Hui Zhang; Telba Z Irony
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.033

5.  Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

Authors:  Rachelle Buchbinder; Renea V Johnston; Kobi J Rischin; Joanne Homik; C Allyson Jones; Kamran Golmohammadi; David F Kallmes
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-11-06

Review 6.  Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

Authors:  Rachelle Buchbinder; Renea V Johnston; Kobi J Rischin; Joanne Homik; C Allyson Jones; Kamran Golmohammadi; David F Kallmes
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-04-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.