Cited by 682Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Assessment of blinding in clinical trials

Bang, Heejung, Ni, Liyun, Davis, Clarence E·2004·Controlled Clinical Trials

Abstract

Success of blinding is a fundamental issue in many clinical trials. The validity of a trial may be questioned if this important assumption is violated. Although thousands of ostensibly double-blind trials are conducted annually and investigators acknowledge the importance of blinding, attempts to measure the effectiveness of blinding are rarely discussed. Several published papers proposed ways to evaluate the success of blinding, but none of the methods are commonly used or regarded as standard. This paper investigates a new approach to assess the success of blinding in clinical trials. The blinding index proposed is scaled to an interval of -1 to 1, 1 being complete lack of blinding, 0 being consistent with perfect blinding and -1 indicating opposite guessing which may be related to unblinding. It has the ability to detect a relatively low degree of blinding, response bias and different behaviors in two arms. The proposed method is applied to a clinical trial of cholesterol-lowering medication in a group of elderly people.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cct.2003.10.016

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 20 · Cited by 682

Authors
Bang, H., Ni, L., & Davis, C. E.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Amgen (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Bang, Heejung
Venue
Controlled Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-04
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
143-156
ISSN
0197-2456 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081859324
Cited by
682
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Controlled Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • George Washington University
  • Wake Forest School of Medicine
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
blinding, response bias, unblinding, cholesterol-lowering drugs, elderly patients
MeSH terms
Aged, Anticholesteremic Agents, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Bias, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic

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