Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
E-pub ahead of print

Blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a retrospective study of published trial reports

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder?

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  2. Statins for primary prevention: what is the regulator's role?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Assessing assumptions for statistical analyses in randomised clinical trials

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Updated 2018 NICE guideline on pharmacological treatments for people with ADHD: a critical look

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

OBJECTIVES: To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded.

DESIGN: Retrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018.

SETTING: Trial reports published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report.

RESULTS: 63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report.

CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
ISSN1356-5524
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Sep 2020

ID: 61111452