These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable.
    Author: Boutron I, Estellat C, Ravaud P.
    Journal: J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Dec; 58(12):1220-6. PubMed ID: 16291465.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine methods to assess the success of blinding in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the Cochrane Method Register and performed a manual search to target studies that attempt to assess blinding and describe the methods used in those studies. RESULTS: A total of 90 reports were selected. Reports assessed the success of blinding participants (n = 58), care providers (n = 36), and outcome assessors (n = 15). Of the 58 reports assessing the success of blinding participants, 54 (93%) reported asking participants to guess their treatment assignment. There was no consistency in timing of assessment (e.g., once at the end of the trial, 57%, or several times during the trial, 26%) or modalities of answering (e.g., "do not know" answers, 43%, or participants forced to guess, 31%). A statistical analysis was performed in 57% of reports. The statistical analysis mainly compared the proportion of correct guesses to those produced by chance (32%) or checked for a relation between participants' guesses and treatment assignment (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Methods of assessing the success of blinding, analysis and reporting the results were inconsistent and questionable.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]