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

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Dokumenter

  • E201.full

    Forlagets udgivne version, 380 KB, PDF-dokument

DOI

  1. Absolute 10-year risk of dementia by age, sex and APOE genotype: a population-based cohort study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Job insecurity and risk of diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Risk of venous thromboembolism and myocardial infarction associated with factor V Leiden adn prothrombin mutations and blook type

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Risk of venous thromboembolism and myocardial infarction associated with factor V Leiden and prothrombin mutations and blood type

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer
BACKGROUND:Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation. RESULTS:We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size -0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2) = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression. INTERPRETATION:We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftC M A J
Vol/bind185
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)E201-E211
ISSN0820-3946
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2013

Mest downloadede publikationer

Ingen data tilgængelig

ID: 36908880