Assessment of blinding in clinical trials

Heejung Bang , Liyun Ni , Clarence E Davis
{"title":"Assessment of blinding in clinical trials","authors":"Heejung Bang ,&nbsp;Liyun Ni ,&nbsp;Clarence E Davis","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2003.10.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Success of blinding is a fundamental issue in many clinical trials. The validity of a trial may be questioned if this important assumption is violated. Although thousands of ostensibly double-blind trials are conducted annually and investigators acknowledge the importance of blinding, attempts to measure the effectiveness of blinding are rarely discussed. Several published papers proposed ways to evaluate the success of blinding, but none of the methods are commonly used or regarded as standard. This paper investigates a new approach to assess the success of blinding in clinical trials. The blinding index proposed is scaled to an interval of −1 to 1, 1 being complete lack of blinding, 0 being consistent with perfect blinding and −1 indicating opposite guessing which may be related to unblinding. It has the ability to detect a relatively low degree of blinding, response bias and different behaviors in two arms. The proposed method is applied to a clinical trial of cholesterol-lowering medication in a group of elderly people.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"25 2","pages":"Pages 143-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2003.10.016","citationCount":"385","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603001776","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 385

Abstract

Success of blinding is a fundamental issue in many clinical trials. The validity of a trial may be questioned if this important assumption is violated. Although thousands of ostensibly double-blind trials are conducted annually and investigators acknowledge the importance of blinding, attempts to measure the effectiveness of blinding are rarely discussed. Several published papers proposed ways to evaluate the success of blinding, but none of the methods are commonly used or regarded as standard. This paper investigates a new approach to assess the success of blinding in clinical trials. The blinding index proposed is scaled to an interval of −1 to 1, 1 being complete lack of blinding, 0 being consistent with perfect blinding and −1 indicating opposite guessing which may be related to unblinding. It has the ability to detect a relatively low degree of blinding, response bias and different behaviors in two arms. The proposed method is applied to a clinical trial of cholesterol-lowering medication in a group of elderly people.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床试验中盲性的评估
在许多临床试验中,盲法的成功是一个基本问题。如果违反了这一重要假设,审判的有效性就可能受到质疑。尽管每年有数以万计的表面上的双盲试验被进行,研究者也承认盲法的重要性,但很少有人讨论如何衡量盲法的有效性。一些已发表的论文提出了评估盲法成功与否的方法,但没有一种方法是常用的或被视为标准的。本文探讨了一种评估临床试验中盲法成功与否的新方法。将提出的盲指标按- 1到1的区间缩放,1表示完全不盲,0表示与完全盲一致,- 1表示猜测相反,可能与解盲有关。它有能力检测相对较低程度的致盲、反应偏差和两只手臂的不同行为。该方法已应用于一组老年人降胆固醇药物的临床试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels Geographic variability in patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in an international trial of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1