Literature DB >> 24930582

Assessing blinding in trials of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis based on blinding index.

Brian Freed1, Oliver Paul Assall2, Gary Panagiotakis3, Heejung Bang4, Jongbae J Park5, Alex Moroz3, Christopher Baethge2.   

Abstract

The assessment of blinding in RCTs is rarely performed. Currently most studies that do report data on evaluation of blinding merely report percentages of correct guessing, not taking into account correct guessing by chance. Blinding assessment using the blinding index (BI) has never been performed in a systematic review on studies of major psychiatric disorders. This study is a systematic review of psychiatric randomized control trials using the BI as a chance-corrected measurement of blinding, a tool to analyze and understand the patterns of blinding across studies of major psychiatric disorders with available data. Of 2467 psychiatric RCTs from 2000 to 2010, 66 reported on blinding and 40 studies were found to have enough information on evaluation of blinding to be analyzed using the BI. The experimental treatment groups had an average BI value of 0.14 and the control groups had an average BI value of 0.00. The most common BI scenario was random-random, indicating ideal blinding. A positive correlation between effect size and more correct guesses was also found. Overall, based on BI values and the most common blinding scenario, the published articles on major psychiatric disorders from 2000 to 2010, which reported on blinding assessment for patients, were effectively blinded.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Affective disorders; Blinded trials; Double-blind trials; Methodology; RCT; Schizophrenia; Therapy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24930582      PMCID: PMC4183143          DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.05.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychiatry Res        ISSN: 0165-1781            Impact factor:   3.222


  23 in total

Review 1.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

Authors:  D Moher; K F Schulz; D G Altman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable.

Authors:  Isabelle Boutron; Candice Estellat; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09-30       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding.

Authors:  A Hróbjartsson; E Forfang; M T Haahr; B Als-Nielsen; S Brorson
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-04-17       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lesley Wood; Matthias Egger; Lise Lotte Gluud; Kenneth F Schulz; Peter Jüni; Douglas G Altman; Christian Gluud; Richard M Martin; Anthony J G Wood; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-03

5.  Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.

Authors:  Mary Lou V H Greenfield; Jill M Mhyre; George A Mashour; James M Blum; Eugene C Yen; Andrew L Rosenberg
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 6.  Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature.

Authors:  Lorena P Rios; Adefowope Odueyungbo; Misha O Moitri; Mohammed O Rahman; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 7.  Systematic review of blinding assessment in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia and affective disorders 2000-2010.

Authors:  Christopher Baethge; Oliver P Assall; Ross J Baldessarini
Journal:  Psychother Psychosom       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 17.659

8.  Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals.

Authors:  Saurav Ghimire; Eunjung Kyung; Wonku Kang; Eunyoung Kim
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 9.  Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.

Authors:  Lucy Turner; Larissa Shamseer; Douglas G Altman; Laura Weeks; Jodi Peters; Thilo Kober; Sofia Dias; Kenneth F Schulz; Amy C Plint; David Moher
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-11-14

10.  Blinding measured: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture.

Authors:  Alex Moroz; Brian Freed; Laura Tiedemann; Heejung Bang; Melanie Howell; Jongbae J Park
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 2.629

View more
  11 in total

1.  Overdispersion models for correlated multinomial data: Applications to blinding assessment.

Authors:  V Landsman; D Landsman; C S Li; H Bang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Double-blinding of an acupuncture randomized controlled trial optimized with clinical translational science award resources.

Authors:  Alana D Steffen; Larisa A Burke; Heather A Pauls; Marie L Suarez; Yingwei Yao; William H Kobak; Miho Takayama; Hiroyoshi Yajima; Ted J Kaptchuk; Nobuari Takakura; Diana J Wilkie; Judith M Schlaeger
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Not All Masks Are Created Equal: Masking Success in Clinical Trials of Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Lauren Jones; Sarah R Black; L Eugene Arnold; Mary A Fristad
Journal:  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol       Date:  2017-07-17

Review 6.  Placebo Devices as Effective Control Methods in Acupuncture Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Claire Shuiqing Zhang; Hsiewe Ying Tan; George Shengxi Zhang; Anthony Lin Zhang; Charlie Changli Xue; Yi Min Xie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

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

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

Review 8.  Maintenance of Blinding in Clinical Trials and the Implications for Studying Analgesia Using Cannabinoids.

Authors:  Barth Wilsey; Reena Deutsch; Thomas D Marcotte
Journal:  Cannabis Cannabinoid Res       Date:  2016-07-01

9.  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

Review 10.  How Placebo Needles Differ From Placebo Pills?

Authors:  Younbyoung Chae; Ye-Seul Lee; Paul Enck
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 4.157

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.