Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences, Equipoise, and Blinding

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Behavioral Clinical Trials for Chronic Diseases

  • 538 Accesses

Abstract

Unique challenges for behavioral clinical trials are posed by expectancy bias resulting from the lethal combination of visible treatment status and visible beliefs about these treatments. In contrast to double-blind drug trials where pre-existing beliefs are neutralized by treatments that look identical, behavioral trials evaluate randomized arms that often look different, thus limiting options for design control of biases resulting from preferences. Blinding outcomes assessors is a necessary, but insufficient, approach to minimize expectancy bias in a behavioral trial. Three additional targets should be considered. The mindset of the principal investigator should be scientific and objective, characterized by equipoise and freedom from a preference for a particular trial result. Design control can be maximized by a push to extend the blind to as many entities as possible, by the use of neutral names for trial arms, and by blinding to trial hypotheses but not to aims. Prevention and early detection of adverse implications of expectancy bias can be accomplished by ongoing assessment of risk of bias in such areas as differential retention, adherence, and co-interventions.

“So many professional scientists suffer from prejudices. Independence from prejudices is, in my opinion, the mark of distinction between a mere artisan and a real seeker after truth.”

Albert Einstein 1944 [1]

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Howard DA, Giovanelli M (2019) Einstein’s philosophy of science. In Zalta EN (ed) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/einstein-philscience

  2. Lakatos I (1977) Science and pseudoscience. Philos Pap 1:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cajal SR (1999) Advice for a young investigator. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson EO (2013) Letters to young scientist. Liveright, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Colagiuri B (2010) Participant expectancies in double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials: potential limitations to trial validity. Clin Trials 7:246–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Piantadosi S (2017) Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sackett DL (1979) Bias in analytic research. J Chron Dis 32:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalmers I, Matthews R (2006) What are the implications of optimism bias in clinical research? Lancet 367:449–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Spodick DH (1979) Controlled trials: planned deception? Lancet 1:534–535

    Google Scholar 

  10. Altman DG (2005) What is a single blind trial? A rapid response to Al-Marzouki S, Evans S, Marshall T, Roberts T. Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ 331:267–270

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wang D, Bakhai A (2006) Clinical trials: a practical guide to design, analysis, and reporting. Remedica, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 309:1358–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Magazin A, Kumar A, Soares H, Schell M, Hozo I, Djulbegovic B (2008) Expectation bias–the main culprit for large number of inconclusive randomized controlled trials in hematological malignancies. Blood 112:671. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V112.11.671.671

  15. Miller FG, Colloca L, Kaptchuk TJ (2009) The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing. Perspect Biol Med 52:518–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beecher HK (1955) The powerful placebo. JAMA 159:1602–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Colloca L, Barsky AJ (2020) Placebo and nocebo effects. New Engl J Med 382:554–561

    Google Scholar 

  18. Benedetti F (2014) Placebo effects: understanding the mechanisms in health and disease, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  19. Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller F, Benedetti F (2010) Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. Lancet 375:686–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaptchuk TJ, Friedlander E, Kelley JM, Sanchez MN, Kokkotou E, Singer JP, Kowalczykowski M, Miller FG, Kirsch I, Lembo AJ (2010) Placebos without deception: a randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS One 5:e15591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015591

  21. Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA, Kuykendall DH, Hollingsworth JC, Ashton CM, Wray NP (2002) A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 347:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB (2013) Designing clinical research, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  23. Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317:141–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Irvin VL, Kaplan RM (2016) Effect sizes and primary outcomes in large-budget, cardiovascular-related behavioral randomized controlled trials funded by NIH since 1980. Ann Behav Med 50:130–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaplan RM, Irvin VL (2015) Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS One 10:e0132382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382

  26. Gordon D, Taddei-Peters W, Mascette A, Antman M, Kaufmann PG, Lauer MS (2013) Publication of trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. N Engl J Med 369:1926–1934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chopra V, Davis M (2011) In search of equipoise. JAMA 305:1234–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, Jackson RD, Beresford SA, Howard BV, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, Ockene J, Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:321–333

    Google Scholar 

  29. Frasure-Smith N, Lespérance F, Prince RH, Verrier P, Garber RA, Juneau M, Wolfson C, Bourassa MG (1997) Randomised trial of home-based psychosocial nursing intervention for patients recovering from myocardial infarction. Lancet 350:473–479

    Google Scholar 

  30. Boutron I, Ravaud P, Moher D (2012) Randomized clinical trials of nonpharmacological treatments. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  31. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Bagley PJ, Blunt HB, White B (2018) Characteristics of interim publications of randomized clinical trials and comparison with final publications. JAMA 319:404–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pocock SJ (1983) Clinical trials: a practical approach. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ahn R, Woodbridge A, Abraham A, Saba S, Korenstein D, Madden E, Boscardin WJ, Keyhani S (2017) Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study. BMJ 356:i6770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6770

  34. Friedman LS, Richter ED (2004) Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 19:51–56

    Google Scholar 

  35. Grundy Q, Dunn AG, Bourgeois FT, Coiera E, Bero L (2018) Prevalence of disclosed conflicts of interest in biomedical research and associations with journal impact factors and altmetric scores. JAMA 319:408–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Chen H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernan MA, Hopewell S, Hrobjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Juni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:14898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

  37. Berkman LF, Blumenthal J, Burg M, Carney RM, Catellier D, Cowan MJ, Czajkowski SM, DeBusk R, Hosking J, Jaffe A, Kaufmann PG, Mitchell P, Norman J, Powell LH, Raczynski JM, Schneiderman N, the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease Patients Investigators (ENRICHD) (2003) Effects of treating depression and low perceived social support on clinical events after myocardial infarction: the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease Patients (ENRICHD) Randomized Trial. JAMA 289:3106–3116

    Google Scholar 

  38. Little P, Stuart B, Hobbs FR, Kelly J, Smith ER, Bradbury KJ, Hughes S, Smith PW, Moore MV, Lean ME, Margetts BM, Byrne CD, Griffin S, Davoudianfar M, Hooper J, Yao G, Zhu S, Raftery J, Yardley L (2016) An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:821–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Little P, Kelly J, Barnett J, Dorward M, Margetts B, Warm D (2004) Randomised controlled factorial trial of dietary advice for patients with a single high blood pressure reading in primary care. BMJ 328:1054. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38037.435972.EE

  40. Friedman M, Thoresen CE, Gill JJ, Powell LH, Ulmer D, Thompson L, Price VA, Rabin DD, Breall WS, Dixon T, Levy R, Bourg E (1984) Alteration of type A behavior and reduction in cardiac recurrences in postmyocardial infarction patients. Am Heart J 108:237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Andersen BL, Yang HC, Farrar WB, Golden-Kreutz DM, Emery CF, Thornton LM, Young DC, Carson WE 3rd (2008) Psychologic intervention improves survival for breast cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial. Cancer 113:3450–3458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Orth-Gomér K, Schneiderman N, Wang HX, Walldin C, Blom M, Jernberg T (2009) Stress reduction prolongs life in women with coronary disease: the Stockholm Women’s Intervention Trial for Coronary Heart Disease (SWITCHD). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ (2008) Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88:156–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A (1981) A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 2:31–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Moher D, Schultz KF, Altman D, CONSORT Group (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schultz K, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869

  47. Colagiuri B, Schenk LA, Kessler MD, Dorsey SG, Colloca L (2015) The placebo effect: from concepts to genes. Neuroscience 307:171–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Brody H, Brody D (2000) The placebo response: how you can release the body’s inner pharmacy for better health. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Lynda H. Powell

  2. College of Nursing, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

    Peter G. Kaufmann

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Kenneth E. Freedland

Authors
  1. Lynda H. Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter G. Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth E. Freedland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Powell, L.H., Kaufmann, P.G., Freedland, K.E. (2021). Preferences, Equipoise, and Blinding. In: Behavioral Clinical Trials for Chronic Diseases. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39330-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation