 |
|
Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials
P. J. Devereaux, MD;
Braden J. Manns, MD;
William A. Ghali, MD,MPH;
Hude Quan, MD,PhD;
Christina Lacchetti, MHSc;
Victor M. Montori, MD;
Mohit Bhandari, MD,MSc;
Gordon H. Guyatt, MD,MSc
JAMA. 2001;285:2000-2003.
Context When clinicians assess the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), they commonly evaluate the blinding status of individuals in the RCT. The terminology authors often use to convey blinding status (single, double, and triple blinding) may be open to various interpretations.
Objective To determine physician interpretations and textbook definitions of RCT blinding terms.
Design and Setting Observational study undertaken at 3 Canadian university tertiary care centers between February and May 1999.
Participants Ninety-one internal medicine physicians who responded to a survey.
Main Outcome Measures Respondents identified which of the following groups they thought were blinded in single-, double-, and triple-blinded RCTs: participants, health care providers, data collectors, judicial assessors of outcomes, data analysts, and personnel who write the article. Definitions from 25 systematically identified textbooks published since 1990 providing definitions for single, double, or triple blinding.
Results Physician respondents identified 10, 17, and 15 unique interpretations of single, double, and triple blinding, respectively, and textbooks provided 5, 9, and 7 different definitions of each. The frequencies of the most common physician interpretation and textbook definition were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65%-83%) and 74% (95% CI, 52%-90%) for single blinding, 38% (95% CI, 28%-49%) and 43% (95% CI, 24%-63%) for double blinding, and 18% (95% CI, 10%-28%) and 14% (95% CI, 0%-58%) for triple blinding, respectively.
Conclusions Our study suggests that both physicians and textbooks vary greatly in their interpretations and definitions of single, double, and triple blinding. Explicit statements about the blinding status of specific groups involved in RCTs should replace the current ambiguous terminology.
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia (Dr Devereaux); Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Ms Lacchetti and Dr Guyatt), Surgery (Dr Bhandari), and Medicine (Dr Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Departments of Medicine (Drs Manns and Ghali) and Community Health Sciences (Drs Manns, Ghali, and Quan), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta; and Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minn (Dr Montori). Dr Devereaux is now with the Department of Medicine, McMaster University.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials
David Moher, Kenneth F. Schulz, Douglas Altman, and for the CONSORT Group
JAMA. 2001;285(15):1987-1991.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials: A Comparative Before-and-After Evaluation
David Moher, Alison Jones, Leah Lepage, and for the CONSORT Group
JAMA. 2001;285(15):1992-1995.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Value of Flow Diagrams in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials
Matthias Egger, Peter Jüni, Christopher Bartlett, and for the CONSORT Group
JAMA. 2001;285(15):1996-1999.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CONSORT Revised—Improving the Reporting of Randomized Trials
Drummond Rennie
JAMA. 2001;285(15):2006-2007.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
April 18, 2001
JAMA. 2001;285(15):2023-2024.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adults: A Systematic Review
Annane et al.
JAMA 2009;301:2362-2375.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in General Endocrinology Literature
Rios et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008;93:3810-3816.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
Wood et al.
BMJ 2008;336:601-605.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Oral Drug Therapy for Multiple Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review
Reddy et al.
JAMA 2007;298:1911-1924.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Quality of Reporting of Orthopaedic Randomized Trials with Use of a Checklist for Nonpharmacological Therapies
Chan and Bhandari
JBJS 2007;89:1970-1978.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials
Pildal et al.
Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:847-857.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Blinding is better than masking
Schulz et al.
BMJ 2007;334:918-918.
FULL TEXT
Perceptions and Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine: Are Surgeons Getting Better? A Questionnaire Survey of Members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association
Poolman et al.
JBJS 2007;89:206-215.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors
Haahr and Hrobjartsson
Clin Trials 2006;3:360-365.
ABSTRACT
Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Diabetes
Montori et al.
Diabetes Care 2006;29:1833-1838.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Bias in Clinical Intervention Research
Gluud
Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:493-501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials
Fergusson et al.
BMJ 2004;328:432.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology
Strippoli et al.
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2004;15:411-419.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Complications of Evaluating the Scientific Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials
Pietrobon et al.
JBJS 2002;84:2307-2308.
FULL TEXT
Meta-Analyses of Therapies for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis * I. Systematic Reviews of Randomized Trials in Osteoporosis: Introduction and Methodology
Cranney et al.
Endocr. Rev. 2002;23:496-507.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials as a Measure of Methodologic Quality
Huwiler-Muntener et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2801-2804.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Double blind, you have been voted off the island!
Devereaux et al.
Evid. Based Ment. Health 2002;5:36-37.
FULL TEXT
"Double blind, you are the weakest link -- goodbye!"
Devereaux et al.
Evid. Based Nurs. 2002;5:36-37.
FULL TEXT
The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000
Bhandari et al.
JBJS 2002;84:388-396.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized Trials
Schulz et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;136:254-259.
FULL TEXT
""Double blind, you are the weakest link -- goodbye!""
Devereaux et al.
Evid. Based Med. 2002;7:4-5.
FULL TEXT
Colloid Use for Fluid Resuscitation: Evidence and Spin
Cook and Guyatt
ANN INTERN MED 2001;135:205-208.
FULL TEXT
Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Juni et al.
BMJ 2001;323:42-46.
FULL TEXT
User's Guide to the Orthopaedic Literature: How to Use an Article About a Surgical Therapy
Bhandari et al.
JBJS 2001;83:916-926.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
CONSORT Revised--Improving the Reporting of Randomized Trials
Rennie
JAMA 2001;285:2006-2007.
FULL TEXT
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2001;134:663-694.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
