Erin Mathieu1, Robert D Herbert2, Kevin McGeechan3, Jemma J Herbert4, Alexandra L Barratt3. 1. School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown, NSW 2560, Australia. 2. Neuroscience Research Australia, Barker St, Randwick, City Road, Camperdown, NSW 2031, Australia. Electronic address: r.herbert@neura.edu.au. 3. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. 4. Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia; Faculty of Engineering and Information Technologies, University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the theoretical justification for blinding in randomized trials and make recommendations concerning the implementation and interpretation of blinded randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A theoretical analysis was conducted of the potential for bias in randomized trials with successful blinding (ie, trials in which beliefs about allocation to treatment or control groups are independent of actual allocation). The analysis identified conditions that must be satisfied to ensure that blinding eliminates the potential for bias associated with beliefs about allocation. RESULTS: Even when beliefs about allocation are independent of actual allocation, they can still cause bias. The potential for bias is eliminated when the belief is uniformly one of complete ambivalence about allocation. CONCLUSION: Even when blinding succeeds in making beliefs about allocation independent of actual allocation, beliefs about allocation may still cause bias. It is difficult to determine the extent of bias in any particular trial. Bias could be eliminated by establishing a state of complete ambivalence about the allocation of every trial participant, but universal ambivalence may be difficult to achieve and may reduce the generalizability of the trial's findings.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the theoretical justification for blinding in randomized trials and make recommendations concerning the implementation and interpretation of blinded randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A theoretical analysis was conducted of the potential for bias in randomized trials with successful blinding (ie, trials in which beliefs about allocation to treatment or control groups are independent of actual allocation). The analysis identified conditions that must be satisfied to ensure that blinding eliminates the potential for bias associated with beliefs about allocation. RESULTS: Even when beliefs about allocation are independent of actual allocation, they can still cause bias. The potential for bias is eliminated when the belief is uniformly one of complete ambivalence about allocation. CONCLUSION: Even when blinding succeeds in making beliefs about allocation independent of actual allocation, beliefs about allocation may still cause bias. It is difficult to determine the extent of bias in any particular trial. Bias could be eliminated by establishing a state of complete ambivalence about the allocation of every trial participant, but universal ambivalence may be difficult to achieve and may reduce the generalizability of the trial's findings.
Authors: Jacob S Aday; Boris D Heifets; Steven D Pratscher; Ellen Bradley; Raymond Rosen; Joshua D Woolley Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Kaylene M Young; Bruce V Taylor; Kalina Makowiecki; Natasha Stevens; Carlie L Cullen; Amin Zarghami; Phuong Tram Nguyen; Lewis Johnson; Jennifer Rodger; Mark R Hinder; Michael Barnett Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 2.728
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
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