Blinding in randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: Protocol for a systematic review and empirical study

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Probst, Pascal ^a   Grummich, Kathrin ^a   Heger, Patrick ^a   Zaschke, Steffen ^a   Knebel, Phillip ^a   Ulrich, Alexis ^a   Büchler, Markus W ^a   Diener, Markus K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bias; Blinding; Detection bias; General and abdominal surgery; Performance bias; Randomized controlled trial; Risk of bias; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL SURGERY; ARTICLE; BLINDING METHOD; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA SYNTHESIS; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ABDOMEN; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STATISTICAL BIAS; SURGERY;

ABDOMEN; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 84961639035     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0226-4     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-2.
2. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes B, Dawes M. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-levels of evidence (March 2009). Available from: www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/(Last accessed 01 Nov 2015)
3. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials in evaluating surgical procedures? Surgery. 1995;118:459-67.
4. Cochrane Handbook: Higgins JPT. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. (Accessed 01 Nov 2015)
5. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials. 2010;11:32.
6. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Lacchetti C, Mouton VM, et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001;285:2000-3.
7. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42-6.
8. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-12.
9. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609-13.
10. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane colloquium. Universita S.Tommaso D'Aquino, Rome. Milan: Centro Cochrane Italiano; 1999. Quality of randomised clinical trials affects estimates of intervention efficacy; p. 57. (poster B10).
11. Jüni P, Tallon D, Egger M. Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on systematic reviews: beyond the basics, St Catherine's College, Oxford. Oxford: Centre for Statistics in Medicine; 2000. 'Garbage in - garbage out'? Assessment of the quality of controlled trials in meta-analyses published in leading journals; p. 19.
12. Noseworthy JH, Ebers GC, Vandervoort MK, Farquhar RE, Yetisir E, Roberts R. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology. 1994;44(1):16-20.
13. Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(6):543-50.
14. Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, Moher D, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med. 2007;4(2):e61.
15. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
16. Begg CB, Cho MK, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-9.
17. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457-65.
18. Probst P, Grummich K, Tenckhoff S, Ulrich A, Büchler MW, Knebel P, Diener MK. Industry bias in randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: an empirical study. Ann Surg. 2015 [Epub ahead of print]
19. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697-703.
20. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2013. http://www.R-project.org. (Accessed 01 Nov 2015).
21. Cochrane collaboration. http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/download (Accessed 01 Nov 2015).
22. Probst P, Grummich K, Ulrich A, Büchler MW, Knebel P, Diener MK. Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome in randomised controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review and empirical study. Syst Rev. 2014;3:138.