当前位置: X-MOL 学术BMJ › 论文详情
Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study.
The BMJ ( IF 27.604 ) Pub Date : 2020-01-21 , DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6802
Helene Moustgaard,Gemma L Clayton,Hayley E Jones,Isabelle Boutron,Lars Jørgensen,David R T Laursen,Mette F Olsen,Asger Paludan-Müller,Philippe Ravaud,Jelena Savović,Jonathan A C Sterne,Julian P T Higgins,Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

OBJECTIVES To study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study). DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCE Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Meta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic. REVIEW METHODS Blinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding. RESULTS The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses. CONCLUSION No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.
更新日期:2020-01-22

 

全部期刊列表>>
智控未来
聚焦商业经济政治法律
跟Nature、Science文章学绘图
控制与机器人
招募海内外科研人才,上自然官网
隐藏1h前已浏览文章
课题组网站
新版X-MOL期刊搜索和高级搜索功能介绍
ACS材料视界
x-mol收录
湖南大学化学化工学院刘松
上海有机所
李旸
南方科技大学
西湖大学
伊利诺伊大学香槟分校
徐明华
中山大学化学工程与技术学院
试剂库存
天合科研
down
wechat
bug