ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
A simple blinding index for randomized controlled trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful Blinding or Wishful Thinking? A Secondary Analysis of a Randomised Controlled Trial of Manual Therapy.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Confirmatory efficacy and safety trial of magnetic seizure therapy versus right unilateral ultra-brief electroconvulsive therapy in depression (CREST-MST): a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in Canada and the USA.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2026Article
- Microtesla magnetic therapy for cognitive impairment in long COVID: a randomized pilot study.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Unmasking three blinding indices for randomized controlled trials: comparison and application.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Article
- A simple blinding index for randomized controlled trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
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
Blinding is an essential part of many randomized controlled trials. However, its quality is usually not checked, and when it is, common measures are the James index and/or the Bang index. In the present paper we discuss these two indices, providing examples demonstrating their considerable weaknesses and limitations, and propose an alternative method for measuring blinding. We argue that this new approach has a number of advantages. We also provide an R-package for computing our blinding index.
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.