Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2004
Checking for interviewer bias in outcome assessment: a method for strengthening the design of prospective, randomised trials in surgery.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physical capability outcomes after total disc replacement with ProDisc-L.International journal of spine surgery · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlind, randomised trials are conceived as the gold standard in clinical research, but this ideal, in its strict sense, can rarely be achieved in surgical settings. One way to strengthen the study design is to check for observer bias in the assessment and evaluation of surgical outcome.
methodIn a randomised, prospective trial comparing nasogastric versus gastrostomy tubes the primary endpoint was the subjective inconvenience induced by the tube system and was assessed in the context of a standardised face-to-face interview. These interviews were tape-recorded on a pocket memo. Two independent raters listened to these interviews and judged--on the basis of how the interviewer formulated the questions--which treatment arm they thought the patients were assigned to and how confident they were in their judgement.
resultsThe overall proportion of correct judgements was 50.5% for rater 1 and 53.2% for rater 2. In other words, both judgement performances were not greater than chance. Nevertheless, the raters' confidence in their judgements increased significantly ( P<0.05) in the course of the rating procedure, whereas the actual proportion of correct judgements did not. There was no overlap between the two raters [kappa = 0.022, not significant (NS)] and between actual group assignment and both raters' judgements (kappa = 0.012, NS and kappa = 0.110, NS).
conclusionThe two independent raters were not able to detect systematic variations in the interviewing style that were contingent on treatment arm assignment. This gives further credence to the results of the randomised trial showing greater patient-reported discomfort and inconvenience with the nasogastric tube than with the gastrostomy tube. The present report describes a feasible method to monitor subtle biases that may occur in trial settings. This helps to strengthen the design of randomised clinical trials in surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14586662What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.