Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27822568›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2016

Random Guess and Wishful Thinking are the Best Blinding Scenarios.

Heejung Bang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

1 author.

Heejung BangDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA, hbang@ucdavis.edu.

Funding

UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000002 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2012 to 2015
$12.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blinding is a methodologic safeguard of treatment evaluation, yet severely understudied empirically. Mathieu et al.'s theoretical analysis (2014) provided an important message that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with belief about allocation in randomized controlled trial; just like the intent-to-treat principle does not guarantee unbiased estimation under noncompliance, the blinded randomized trial as a golden standard may produce bias. They showed possible biases but did not assess how large the bias could be in different scenarios. In this paper, we examined their findings, and numerically assessed and compared the bias in treatment effect parameters by simulation under frequently encountered blinding scenarios, aiming to identify the most ideal blinding scenarios in practice. We conclude that Random Guess and Wishful Thinking (e.g., participants tend to believe they received treatment) are the most ideal blinding scenarios, incurring minimal bias. We also find some evidence that imperfect or partial blinding can be better than no blinding.

Indexed as

biasblindingblinding indexclinical trial

Identifiers

PMID27822568
PMCPMC5096460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.