Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Dokumenter

  • 1272.full

    Forlagets udgivne version, 392 KB, PDF-dokument

DOI

  1. Cohort Profile: COVIDMENT: COVID-19 cohorts on mental health across six nations

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Use of antidepressants and endometrial-cancer risk: a nationwide nested case-control study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Diagnostic radiological examinations and risk of intracranial tumours in adults-findings from the Interphone Study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Cohort Profile: The Copenhagen Baby Heart Study (CBHS)

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Maternal education and cognitive development in 15 European very-preterm birth cohorts from the RECAP Preterm platform

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Quantifying surgical skill in macular surgery

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  3. The learning curve of robot-assisted vitreoretinal surgery - A randomized trial in a simulated setting

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Blinding patients in clinical trials is a key methodological procedure, but the expected degree of bias due to nonblinded patients on estimated treatment effects is unknown.

METHODS: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials with one sub-study (i.e. experimental vs control) involving blinded patients and another, otherwise identical, sub-study involving nonblinded patients. Within each trial, we compared the difference in effect sizes (i.e. standardized mean differences) between the sub-studies. A difference <0 indicates that nonblinded patients generated a more optimistic effect estimate. We pooled the differences with random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis, and explored reasons for heterogeneity.

RESULTS: Our main analysis included 12 trials (3869 patients). The average difference in effect size for patient-reported outcomes was -0.56 (95% confidence interval -0.71 to -0.41), (I(2)=60%, P=0.004), i.e. nonblinded patients exaggerated the effect size by an average of 0.56 standard deviation, but with considerable variation. Two of the 12 trials also used observer-reported outcomes, showing no indication of exaggerated effects due lack of patient blinding. There was a larger effect size difference in 10 acupuncture trials [-0.63 (-0.77 to -0.49)], than in the two non-acupuncture trials [-0.17 (-0.41 to 0.07)]. Lack of patient blinding also increased attrition and use of co-interventions: ratio of control group attrition risk 1.79 (1.18 to 2.70), and ratio of control group co-intervention risk 1.55 (0.99 to 2.43).

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence of pronounced bias due to lack of patient blinding in complementary/alternative randomized clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftInternational Journal of Epidemiology
Vol/bind43
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)1272-83
Antal sider12
ISSN0300-5771
DOI
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2014

Mest downloadede publikationer

Ingen data tilgængelig

ID: 44633817