In the hierarchy of evidence, randomised trials are near the top, trumped only by meta-analysis of such trials, with blinding of patients and clinicians firmly established as being key to their validity. But new research published in The BMJ this week casts doubt on the benefits of blinding. Helene Moustgaard and colleagues have meta-analysed 142 Cochrane meta-analyses, incorporating 1153 randomised trials. They conclude that there’s no evidence that a lack of blinding leads to exaggerated estimates of treatment effects (doi:10.1136/bmj.l6802). This apparent lack of benefit should be seen in the …

中文翻译：

---

可能不需要致盲，但请撤掉

在证据的层次上，随机试验接近最高，仅通过此类试验的荟萃分析胜过，对患者和临床医生的盲目性是其有效性的关键。但是，本周在《 BMJ》上发表的新研究对盲目的好处产生了怀疑。Helene Moustgaard及其同事对142项Cochrane荟萃分析进行了荟萃分析，纳入了1153项随机试验。他们得出结论，没有证据表明缺乏盲法会导致对治疗效果的估计过大（doi：10.1136 / bmj.l6802）。这种明显的缺乏利益应该在……中看到。