C J Minns Lowe1, M S Wilson, C M Sackley, K L Barker. 1. Physiotherapy Research Unit, Nuffield Orthopaedics Centre NHS Trust, Oxford and Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. catherine.minnslowe@noc.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop trial protocols which promote the achievement of blind outcome assessment. (2) To report outcome assessor beliefs regarding group allocation at follow-up assessments. (3) To document and describe instances of unblinding occurring during the trial to assist and inform rehabilitation researchers and clinicians. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: An NHS Hospital Trust specializing in orthopaedic surgery. SUBJECTS:One hundred and seven patients participating in a prospective pragmatic randomized controlled trial investigating physiotherapy rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty, plus three outcome assessors. INTERVENTIONS: A protocol was developed using available research and designed to minimize instances of unblinding during a physiotherapy rehabilitation trial. Administrative, office, patient and research staff procedures were included. MAIN MEASURES: Trial questionnaires measured blind outcome assessment responses at 3 and 12 months post surgery. The outcome assessor kept a field diary recording the events surrounding instances of unblinding. Data underwent descriptive and content analysis. RESULTS: Blind outcome assessment was believed successful for n = 74 (81.32%) assessments at 3-month follow-up, and n = 83 (91.21%) at 12 months. Forty instances (n = 28 participants) of unblinding were described in the field diary. While the main cause of unblinding was participants telling the outcome assessor, in 12.5% of events the assessor drew the wrong conclusion regarding group allocation. Not all unblinding events were remembered at subsequent assessments, even in this relatively small trial. CONCLUSIONS: Blind outcome assessment was considered achievable in this trial. Specific trial protocols enabled blinding beliefs to be reported and instances of unblinding to be described.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop trial protocols which promote the achievement of blind outcome assessment. (2) To report outcome assessor beliefs regarding group allocation at follow-up assessments. (3) To document and describe instances of unblinding occurring during the trial to assist and inform rehabilitation researchers and clinicians. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: An NHS Hospital Trust specializing in orthopaedic surgery. SUBJECTS: One hundred and seven patients participating in a prospective pragmatic randomized controlled trial investigating physiotherapy rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty, plus three outcome assessors. INTERVENTIONS: A protocol was developed using available research and designed to minimize instances of unblinding during a physiotherapy rehabilitation trial. Administrative, office, patient and research staff procedures were included. MAIN MEASURES: Trial questionnaires measured blind outcome assessment responses at 3 and 12 months post surgery. The outcome assessor kept a field diary recording the events surrounding instances of unblinding. Data underwent descriptive and content analysis. RESULTS: Blind outcome assessment was believed successful for n = 74 (81.32%) assessments at 3-month follow-up, and n = 83 (91.21%) at 12 months. Forty instances (n = 28 participants) of unblinding were described in the field diary. While the main cause of unblinding was participants telling the outcome assessor, in 12.5% of events the assessor drew the wrong conclusion regarding group allocation. Not all unblinding events were remembered at subsequent assessments, even in this relatively small trial. CONCLUSIONS: Blind outcome assessment was considered achievable in this trial. Specific trial protocols enabled blinding beliefs to be reported and instances of unblinding to be described.
Authors: Maarten P van der Worp; Nick van der Horst; Anton de Wijer; Frank J G Backx; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Sports Med Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Karen L Barker; Jon Room; Ruth Knight; Susan J Dutton; Fran Toye; Jose Leal; Seamus Kent; Nicola Kenealy; Michael M Schussel; Gary Collins; David J Beard; Andrew Price; Martin Underwood; Avril Drummond; Elaine Cook; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paula R Beckenkamp; C Christine Lin; Robert D Herbert; Marion Haas; Kriti Khera; Anne M Moseley Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Karen L Barker; David Beard; Andrew Price; Francine Toye; Martin Underwood; Avril Drummond; Gary Collins; Susan Dutton; Helen Campbell; Nicola Kenealy; Jon Room; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Trials Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ailie J Turton; Paul Cunningham; Emma Heron; Frederike van Wijck; Cath Sackley; Chris Rogers; Keith Wheatley; Sue Jowett; Steven L Wolf; Paulette van Vliet Journal: Trials Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Shirley A Thomas; Elizabeth Coates; Roshan das Nair; Nadina B Lincoln; Cindy Cooper; Rebecca Palmer; Stephen J Walters; Nicholas R Latimer; Timothy J England; Laura Mandefield; Timothy Chater; Patrick Callaghan; Avril E R Drummond Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2016-08-10