Assessment of blinding in 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
Cites
Statistics
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?
Blinding effectiveness was assessed via the James Blinding Index.
“Blinding effectiveness was assessed via the James Blinding Index (Bang et al., 2004; Kolahi et al., 2009).”
From A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for bipolar disorder: Safety, tolerability, mood and cognitive effects (2025) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2004
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
- ORCID
- 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