CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 258Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials

Devereaux, P. J.·2001·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.285.15.2000
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: When clinicians assess the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), they commonly evaluate the blinding status of individuals in the RCT. The terminology authors often use to convey blinding status (single, double, and triple blinding) may be open to various interpretations. OBJECTIVE: To determine physician interpretations and textbook definitions of RCT blinding terms. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study undertaken at 3 Canadian university tertiary care centers between February and May 1999. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-one internal medicine physicians who responded to a survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents identified which of the following groups they thought were blinded in single-, double-, and triple-blinded RCTs: participants, health care providers, data collectors, judicial assessors of outcomes, data analysts, and personnel who write the article. Definitions from 25 systematically identified textbooks published since 1990 providing definitions for single, double, or triple blinding. RESULTS: Physician respondents identified 10, 17, and 15 unique interpretations of single, double, and triple blinding, respectively, and textbooks provided 5, 9, and 7 different definitions of each. The frequencies of the most common physician interpretation and textbook definition were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65%-83%) and 74% (95% CI, 52%-90%) for single blinding, 38% (95% CI, 28%-49%) and 43% (95% CI, 24%-63%) for double blinding, and 18% (95% CI, 10%-28%) and 14% (95% CI, 0%-58%) for triple blinding, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that both physicians and textbooks vary greatly in their interpretations and definitions of single, double, and triple blinding. Explicit statements about the blinding status of specific groups involved in RCTs should replace the current ambiguous terminology.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.285.15.2000

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 34 references

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–258 of 258

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Devereaux, P. J.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Devereaux, P. J.
ORCID
Devereaux, P. J.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2001-04-18
Volume
285
Issue
15
Pages
2000
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.285.15.2000
OpenAlex
W2033289105
Cited by
258
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 16
FWCI
26.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
blinding, double blinding, triple blinding, randomized controlled trials, physician interpretation, textbook definitions, trial validity, internists
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Terminology as Topic, Publishing, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Single-Blind Method

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review