Susan Armijo-Olivo1, Liz Dennett, Chiara Arienti, Mustafa Dahchi, Jari Arokoski, Allen W Heinemann, Antti Malmivaara. 1. From the University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany (SA-O); Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Research Center, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (SA-O, MD); Cochrane Rehabilitation, IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy (SA-O, CA); Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (LD); IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy (CA); Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (JA); University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (JA); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Centre for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, Illinois (AWH); and Centre for Health and Social Economics, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland (AM).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the association between different types of blinding on treatment effects estimates in the area of rehabilitation. METHODS: Evidence synthesis was used for the design of the study. This study included any systematic review or meta-epidemiological study that investigated associations between any blinding component and treatment effects estimates in randomized control trials in the area of rehabilitation. The information obtained from the included studies was organized by type of blinding and summarized using a narrative and/or quantitative approach when possible. If there were enough data of estimates for any type of blinding, we decided to pool them in an exploratory fashion. RESULTS: The literature search identified a total of 1015 citations, of which 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies show overestimation, underestimation, or neutral associations for different types of blinding on treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Associations were mixed and did not follow a consistent pattern. Lack/poor reporting of blinding, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity of data sets could have led to nonsignificant and inconsistent results obtained by the included studies. Although the evidence regarding the association between blinding and treatment effect estimates is still inconclusive in the rehabilitation field, based on the available literature, researchers should select creative solutions to avoid performance and detection bias.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the association between different types of blinding on treatment effects estimates in the area of rehabilitation. METHODS: Evidence synthesis was used for the design of the study. This study included any systematic review or meta-epidemiological study that investigated associations between any blinding component and treatment effects estimates in randomized control trials in the area of rehabilitation. The information obtained from the included studies was organized by type of blinding and summarized using a narrative and/or quantitative approach when possible. If there were enough data of estimates for any type of blinding, we decided to pool them in an exploratory fashion. RESULTS: The literature search identified a total of 1015 citations, of which 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies show overestimation, underestimation, or neutral associations for different types of blinding on treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Associations were mixed and did not follow a consistent pattern. Lack/poor reporting of blinding, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity of data sets could have led to nonsignificant and inconsistent results obtained by the included studies. Although the evidence regarding the association between blinding and treatment effect estimates is still inconclusive in the rehabilitation field, based on the available literature, researchers should select creative solutions to avoid performance and detection bias.
Authors: Francesca Gimigliano; Vanessa M Young; Chiara Arienti; Silvia Bargeri; Greta Castellini; Silvia Gianola; Stefano G Lazzarini; Antimo Moretti; Allen W Heinemann; Stefano Negrini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-19 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Filipe Oliveira de Almeida; Vagner Santana; Daniel M Corcos; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Carla Silva-Batista Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Ilaria Giallini; Maria Nicastri; Laura Mariani; Rosaria Turchetta; Giovanni Ruoppolo; Marco de Vincentiis; Corrado De Vito; Antonio Sciurti; Valentina Baccolini; Patrizia Mancini Journal: Audiol Res Date: 2021-12-13