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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The lack of detailed descriptions creates significant variability in both clinical interpretations and definitions of these terms in epidemiological manuals (Devereaux 2001).”
From Adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomized clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity treatment using mouthwashes (2025) · cites this paper as Devereaux 2001
Citations
Cites
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
Sackett, D. L. (2000) · Cited by 5,950
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_10 · Cited by 1,838
Bowling, A. (1998) · Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1027//0269-8803.14.2.126 · Cited by 1,443
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.21.2598 · Cited by 1,185
A Network Algorithm for Performing Fisher's Exact Test in r × c Contingency Tables
Mehta, C. R., & Patel, N. R. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1983.10477989 · Cited by 898
Effect of encouragement on walking test performance.
Guyatt, G. H., Pugsley, S. O., Sullivan, M. J., Thompson, P. J., Berman, L., Jones, N. L., Fallen, E. L., & Taylor, D. W. (1984) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thx.39.11.818 · Cited by 816
How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine
(1998) · Air Medical Journal · doi:10.1016/s1067-991x(98)90091-8 · Cited by 720
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883
“’’ A problem with this lexicon is that there is great variability in clinician interpretations and epidemiological textbook definitions of these terms [169].”
BackgroundSelf-citationSPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
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
- 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
