ReviewIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
Blinding and Its Quality in Clinical Trials Conducted on Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Review in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blinding is one of the critical criteria of clinical trials that prevents probable bias. Judgment regarding results of an intervention significantly depends on the quality of such studies, one of which is blinding. This study aimed to investigate blinding and its quality in clinical trials in patients with breast cancer. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted on the online databases of PubMed, ScienceDirect and ProQuest using keywords, MeSH terms and grey literature. Articles were screened by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were evaluated based on the checklists introduced by Cochrane database. Results: From 22519 articles obtained at the initial stage, 20 articles remained after screening for the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifteen articles had used single, five: double and none had used triple or quadruple blinding. Seventeen studies had described the details of blinding. Of the 15 single blind articles, the blinded subjects were patients in five, patients and research assistants in three, research assistants in five studies, and two had not given any details. Conclusions: The majority of researchers had used the single blind method, though using double, triple or quadruple blinding increases the trustworthiness of results and increases the quality of clinical trials. The details of blinding should be explained to other researchers and for a better understanding of the method if it is to be repeated. Thereafter, nurses can apply new interventions and earn their patients' trust and help those with breast cancer by relieving them of their disease symptoms and its treatment complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.