Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011659›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019

How to maintain the maximal level of blinding in randomisation for a placebo-controlled drug trial.

Lei Clifton, David A Clifton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Blinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big Picture.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Lei CliftonNuffield Department of Population Health (NDPH), University of Oxford, UK.
David A CliftonInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We illustrate the approach of randomising treatments and compare it with the traditional approach of randomising patients, using a case study drawn from the authors' experience in clinical trials. The setting is a double-blind parallel two-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT), but the method in this paper can be extended to single-blind, cross-over, or multi-arm RCTs. We propose the concept of two different levels of blinding: full blinding and partial blinding. We subsequently show how to maintain the maximal level of blinding. Using an example, we show that a pharmacist can be fully blinded if the investigational medical products (IMPs) that they prescribe (instead of patients) are randomised, and they can be partially blinded if they need to dispense replacement (i.e., surplus) IMPs. A small number of surplus IMPs is commonly required in a clinical trial to replace lost or damaged IMPs. We note that the concept of full blinding and partial blinding is different from double-blind trial, and the level of blinding is relevant in both single-blind and double-blind trials. A trial statistician needs to work closely with all parties in the design of the randomisation, including the pharmacist, the trial manager, and the manufacturer. We detail what should and should not be shown in the various documents that the trial statistician need to provide to the pharmacist and to the manufacturer. We provide template tables for these documents.

Indexed as

BlindingDouble-blindInvestigational medical product (IMP)PharmacistPlaceboRandomisationRandomised controlled trial (RCT)Single-blind

Identifiers

PMID31011659
PMCPMC6462539

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.