Advertisement

Blinding

  • Lawrence M. Friedman
  • Curt D. Furberg
  • David L. DeMets
  • David M. Reboussin
  • Christopher B. Granger

Abstract

In any clinical trial bias in determining treatment effects is one of the main concerns. Bias may be defined as systematic error, or “difference between the true value and that actually obtained due to all causes other than sampling variability” [1]. It can be caused by conscious factors, subconscious factors, or both. Bias can occur at a number of places in a clinical trial, from the initial design through data analysis, interpretation and reporting. One general solution to the problem of bias is to keep the participants and the investigators blinded, or masked, to the identity of the assigned intervention. One can also blind several other aspects of a trial including the assessment, classification and evaluation of the response variables. A large sample size does not reduce bias.

Keywords

International Normalize Ratio Monitoring Committee International Normalize Ratio Control Bismuth Citrate Ranitidine Hydrochloride 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Mausner JS, Bahn AK. Epidemiology: An Introductory Text. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional Ignorance: A history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bull Hist Med 1998;72:389–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amberson JB, Jr, McMahon BT, Pinner M. A clinical trial of sanocrysin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Am Rev Tuberc 1931;24:401–435.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2001;285:2000–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viergever RF, Ghersi D. Information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials. Trials 2012;13:210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haahr MT, Hrobjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials 2006;3:360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park J, White AR, Stevinson C, Ernst E. Who are we blinding? A systematic review of blinded clinical trials. Perfusion 2001;14:296–304.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlöf B. Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-Point. Blood Press 1992;1:113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group. Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:61–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karlowski TR, Chalmers TC, Frenkel LD, et al. Ascorbic acid for the common cold. A prophylactic and therapeutic trial. JAMA 1975;231:1038–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis TL, Karlowski TR, Kapikian AZ, et al. A controlled clinical trial of ascorbic acid for the common cold. Ann NY Acad Sci 1975;258:505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris: survival at two years. Lancet 1979;i:889–893.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schechter PJ, Friedewald WT, Bronzert DA, et al. Idiopathic hypogeusia: a description of the syndrome and a single-blind study with zinc sulfate. Int Rev Neurobiol 1972;(suppl 1):125–140.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henkin RI, Schechter PJ, Friedewald WT, et al. A double blind study of the effects of zinc sulfate on taste and smell dysfunction. Am J Med Sci 1976;272:285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halperin JL, and The Executive Steering Committee on behalf of the SPORTIF III and V Study Investigators. Ximelagatran compared with warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Rationale, objectives, and design of a pair of clinical studies and baseline patient characteristics (SPORTIF III and V). Am Heart J 2003;146:431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, et al. for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Investigators. A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1393–1401.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, McMurray JJV, et al. for the Dronedarone Study Group. Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2678–2682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hertzberg V, Chimowitz M, Lynn M, et al. Use of dose modification schedules is effective for blinding trials of warfarin: evidence from the WASID study. Clin Trials 2008;5:25–30.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coumadin Aspirin Reinfarction Study (CARS) Investigators. Randomised double-blind trial of fixed low-dose warfarin with aspirin after myocardial infarction. Lancet 2008;350:389–396.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    SPORTIF Executive Steering Committee for the SPORTIF V Investigators. Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. A randomized trial. JAMA 2005;293:690–698.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tashkin DP, Celli B, Senn S, et al. for the UPLIFT Study Investigators. A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1543–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wittes J, Boissel J-P, Furberg CD, et al. Stopping the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study early for efficacy. In DeMets DL, Furberg CD, Friedman LM, (eds.). Data Managing in Clinical Trials. A Case Study Approach. New York: Springer, 2006, pp. 148–157.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Page SJ, Persch AC. Recruitment, retention, and blinding in clinical trials. Am J Occup Ther 2013;67:154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aspirin Myocardial Infarction Study Research Group. A randomized, controlled trial of aspirin in persons recovered from myocardial infarction. JAMA 1980;243:661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, et al. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med 2007;4:370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    von Wolff A, Hölzel LP, Westphal A, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in the acute treatment of chronic depression and dysthymia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2013;144:7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hill LE, Nunn AJ, Fox W. Matching quality of agents employed in “double-blind” controlled clinical trials. Lancet 1976;i:352–356.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fergusson D, Glass KC, Waring D, Shapiro S. Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials. Br Med J 2004;328:432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farr BM, Gwaltney JM Jr. The problems of taste in placebo matching: an evaluation of zinc gluconate for the common cold. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:875–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fai CK, De Qi G, Wei DA, Chung LP. Placebo preparation for the proper clinical trial of herbal medicine – requirements, verification and quality control. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov 2011;5:169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    DeKosky ST, Williamson JD, Fitzpatrick AL, et al. for the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory (GEM) Study Investigators. Ginkgo biloba for prevention of dementia. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;300:2253–2262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mathew NT, Schoenen J, Winner P, et al. Comparative efficacy of eletriptan 40 mg versus sumatriptan 100 mg. Headache 2003;43:214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The CAPS Investigators. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Pilot Study. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pacifico L, Osborn JF, Anania C, et al. Review article: bismuth-based therapy for helicobacter pylori eradication in children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;35:1010–1026.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ridker PM, Cook NP, Lee I-M, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1293–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hróbjartsson A, Forfang E, Haahr MT, et al. Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:654–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peron J, Pond GR, Gan HK, et al. Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:982–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Han C, Kwak K, Marks DM, et al. The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry. Comtemp Clin Trials 2009;30:116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boutron I, Estellat C, Ravaud P. A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:1220–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sackett DL. Turning a blind eye. Why we don’t test for blindness at the end of our trials. (Letter) Br Med J;328:1136.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sackett DL. Commentary: Measuring the success of blinding in RCTs: don’t, must, can’t or needn’t? Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:664–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ 2010;340:698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bishop FL, Jacobson EE, Shaw J, Kaptchuk TJ. Participants’ experiences of being debriefed to placebo allocation in a clinical trial. Qual Health Res 2012;22:1138—1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Goetz CG, Janko K, Blasucci L, Jaglin JA. Impact of placebo assignment in clinical trials of Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders 2003;18:1146–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence M. Friedman
    • 1
  • Curt D. Furberg
    • 2
  • David L. DeMets
    • 3
  • David M. Reboussin
    • 4
  • Christopher B. Granger
    • 5
  1. 1.North BethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Public Health SciencesWake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  3. 3.Department Biostatistics and Medical InformaticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsWake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations