盲法对试验结果的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

T. Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, T. Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, J. Mah, D. Zeraatkar
{"title":"盲法对试验结果的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"T. Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, T. Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, J. Mah, D. Zeraatkar","doi":"10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blinding, the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized, is an important consideration for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference (dSMD) < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate treatment effects. Results: We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers, outcome assessors/adjudicators, and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that blinding may influence trial results in select situations, albeit the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of trials without blinding.","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"T. Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, T. Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, J. Mah, D. Zeraatkar\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Blinding, the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized, is an important consideration for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference (dSMD) < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate treatment effects. Results: We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers, outcome assessors/adjudicators, and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that blinding may influence trial results in select situations, albeit the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of trials without blinding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.05.23286821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:盲法,即受试者被随机分配到的手臂的隐蔽性,是评估随机试验偏倚风险的重要考虑因素。然而,关于非盲法试验是否会产生有偏见的结果,越来越多的证据得出了不一致的结果。目的:对采用和不采用盲法的试验是否产生不同结果的证据进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Reviews、JBI EBP和Web of Science,检索时间从开始到2022年5月,以比较使用和不使用盲法的试验结果。成对的审稿人,独立工作,一式两份,审查符合条件的研究和提取数据的搜索结果。我们汇总了使用频率随机效应荟萃分析比较患者、医疗保健提供者/研究者和结局评估者/评判者采用和不采用盲法的试验的研究结果。我们对研究结果进行编码,使比值比(ROR) < 1和标准化平均差(dSMD)差异< 0表明未采用盲法的试验高估了治疗效果。结果:我们确定了47项符合条件的研究。对于二分类结果,我们发现低确定性证据表明,没有对患者和医疗保健提供者、结果评估者/裁决者和患者进行盲法的试验可能会略微高估治疗效果。对于连续结果,我们发现低确定性证据表明,没有对结果评估者/评审者和患者进行盲法的试验可能会略微高估治疗效果。结论:我们的系统综述和荟萃分析表明,在某些情况下,盲法可能会影响试验结果,尽管研究结果的确定性较低,影响程度也不大。在缺乏高确定性证据表明使用和不使用盲法的试验产生相似结果的情况下,研究者在解释不使用盲法的试验结果时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Blinding, the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized, is an important consideration for assessing risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference (dSMD) < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate treatment effects. Results: We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers, outcome assessors/adjudicators, and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators and patients may slightly overestimate treatment effects. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that blinding may influence trial results in select situations, albeit the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of trials without blinding.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
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