Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17311468›Full record

ReviewPLoS medicine2007

Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments.

Isabelle Boutron, Lydia Guittet, Candice Estellat, David Moher, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Philippe Ravaud

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 167 papers, 39 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
167citing papers in PubMed, 39 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01648738 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of a Short, Intensive and Standardised Spa Therapy for Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain on Return to Work for Patients in Sick Leave From 4 to 24 Weeks Duration : a Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Modified Zelen Method

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2012 to 2016Enrolled88ConditionsLow Back PainArmsSpa therapy, exercise and educational therapy, Usual care
NCT04046770 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Innovative Device for Intravenous Administration

TypeinterventionalSponsorEscola Superior de Enfermagem de CoimbraRan2020 to 2020Enrolled146ConditionsSafety Issues, Medical DeviceArmsDrug administration and Flushing procedure using Double-Chamber Syringe, Drug administration and Flushing procedure using Classic Syringe
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

167 citing papers in PubMed, 39 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

107 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Isabelle BoutronINSERM, U738, Paris, France. isabelle.boutron@bch.ap-hop-paris.fr
Lydia Guittet
Candice Estellat
David Moher
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Philippe Ravaud

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlinding is a cornerstone of treatment evaluation. Blinding is more difficult to obtain in trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment and frequently relies on "creative" (nonstandard) methods. The purpose of this study was to systematically describe the strategies used to obtain blinding in a sample of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment. METHODS AND

findingsWe systematically searched in Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing nonpharmacological treatment with blinding, published during 2004 in high-impact-factor journals. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction form. We identified 145 articles, with the method of blinding described in 123 of the reports. Methods of blinding of participants and/or health care providers and/or other caregivers concerned mainly use of sham procedures such as simulation of surgical procedures, similar attention-control interventions, or a placebo with a different mode of administration for rehabilitation or psychotherapy. Trials assessing devices reported various placebo interventions such as use of sham prosthesis, identical apparatus (e.g., identical but inactivated machine or use of activated machine with a barrier to block the treatment), or simulation of using a device. Blinding participants to the study hypothesis was also an important method of blinding. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors relied mainly on centralized assessment of paraclinical examinations, clinical examinations (i.e., use of video, audiotape, photography), or adjudications of clinical events.

conclusionsThis study classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could overcome some barriers of blinding in clinical trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment, and provides information for readers assessing the quality of results of such trials.

Indexed as

Research DesignDouble-Blind MethodHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17311468
PMCPMC1800311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.