Trial reportTrials2026
Evaluating blinding in trials of endometrial scratching: a randomised nested survey within two randomised controlled trials.
Trial report in Trials, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlinding of participants in randomised controlled trials is considered a robust method to protect against biases associated with departures from the intended intervention and measurement of the outcome. Even when implemented, the success of blinding is not guaranteed, and participants may be able to discern their allocation through the experience of medication side effects or procedural discomfort. To assess the effectiveness of blinding, formal evaluation tools such as the James and Bang blinding indices have been developed.
aimTo explore whether participants can be effectively blinded in randomised controlled trials involving physical procedures, using endometrial scratching as a case study. Secondary aims were to measure whether symptoms from the procedures (pain, bleeding, and pregnancy outcome) are associated with unblinding, and whether behaviours of trial participants (intercourse patterns and protocol violations) may manifest as a result of unblinding.
methodsA randomised survey was conducted during two existing trials of endometrial scratching compared to a placebo procedure, in couples attempting to conceive from intercourse. Participants were asked to guess their trial allocation and to provide a reason for their guess. Participants were randomised to guess their allocation either early (within 1 week of study intervention) or late (after their window to conceive had closed). Blinding was assessed using both Bang's and James' blinding indexes, and the association of participant guesses and the measured symptoms and behaviours was evaluated by chi-squared test and the independent Student's t-test.
resultsOf 278 participants, 56% correctly guessed their allocation, 32% guessed incorrectly, and 21% selected 'don't know'. Pain and bleeding were significantly higher in the endometrial scratching arm and were associated with correct guessing. Blinding indices suggested a lack of blinding, particularly in the intervention group (James' blinding index 0.42 (0.36-0.48)). No differences were observed in intercourse timing or protocol violations between groups.
conclusionThe sham procedure used in these studies does not appear to have achieved complete blinding; however, there was no evidence that lack of blinding led to impacts on important trial behaviour, such as frequency of intercourse.
trial registrationACTRN12614000657628, ACTRN12614000656639. Registered on June 24 2014.
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.