A theoretical analysis showed that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with beliefs about allocation in randomized clinical trials

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 667-671

  Mathieu, Erin ^a   Herbert, Robert D ^b   McGeechan, Kevin ^c   Herbert, Jemma J ^d,e   Barratt, Alexandra L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bias; Blinding; Clinical trials; Masking; Randomized controlled trials; RCTs

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLINDED RANDOMIZED TRIAL; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); THEORETICAL STUDY;

BIAS; BLINDING; CLINICAL TRIALS; MASKING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RCTS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84899431363     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. J.R. Rees, T.J. Wade, D.A. Levy, J.M. Colford Jr., and J.F. Hilton Changes in beliefs identify unblinding in randomized controlled trials: a method to meet CONSORT guidelines Contemp Clin Trials 26 2005 25 37
2. D.L. Sackett Measuring the success of blinding in RCTs: don't, must, can't or needn't? Int J Epidemiol 36 2007 664 665
3. R.D. Herbert, G. Jamtvedt, J. Mead, and K.B. Hagen Practical evidence-based physiotherapy 2nd ed. 2011 Elsevier Oxford, UK
4. S.J. Day, and D.G. Altman Blinding in clinical trials and other studies BMJ 321 2000 504
5. M. King, I. Nazareth, F. Lampe, P. Bower, M. Chandler, and M. Morou et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review JAMA 293 2005 1089 1099
6. Preference Collaborative Review Group Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis BMJ 337 2008 a1864
7. M.R. Franco, M.L. Ferreira, P.H. Ferreira, C.G. Maher, R.Z. Pinto, and D.C. Cherkin Methodological limitations prevent definitive conclusions on the effects of patients' preferences in randomized clinical trials evaluating musculoskeletal conditions J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 586 598
8. S.L. Prady, J. Burch, S. Crouch, and H. MacPherson Insufficient evidence to determine the impact of patient preferences on clinical outcomes in acupuncture trials: a systematic review J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 308 318
9. K.J. McCaffery, R. Turner, P. Macaskill, S.D. Walter, S.F. Chan, and L. Irwig Determining the impact of informed choice: separating treatment effects from the effects of choice and selection in randomized trials Med Decis Making 31 2011 229 236
10. G. Rücker A two-stage trial design for testing treatment, self-selection and treatment preference effects Stat Med 8 1989 477 485
11. E. Nuesch, S. Reichenbach, S. Trelle, A.W. Rutjes, K. Liewald, and R. Sterchi et al. The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study Arthritis Rheum 61 2009 1633 1641
12. K.F. Schulz, I. Chalmers, R.J. Hayes, and D.G. Altman Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials JAMA 273 1995 408 412
13. J.A. Sterne, P. Juni, K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, C. Bartlett, and M. Egger Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research Stat Med 21 2002 1513 1524
14. L. Wood, M. Egger, L.L. Gluud, K.F. Schulz, P. Juni, and D.G. Altman et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 336 2008 601 605