Cited by 300Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials

Boutron, Isabelle, Tubach, Florence, Giraudeau, Bruno, Ravaud, Philippe·2004·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To compare the feasibility of blinding and the perceived risk of unblinding in trials evaluating pharmacologic (PT) and nonpharmacologic treatments (NPT) of hip or knee osteoarthritis.Study design and setting Two independent reviewers assessed the feasibility of blinding patients, care providers, and outcome assessors, the perceived risk of unblinding, and whether blinding was reported in 110 reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PT and NPT in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis.Results Blinding was considered to be possible less often in NPT trials than in PT trials for patients (42 vs. 96%; P <.001), care providers (12 vs. 96%; P <.001), and outcome assessors (34 vs. 98%; P <.001). When blinding was judged feasible, the perceived risk of unblinding was more often considered moderate or important in NPT than PT trials for patients (35 vs. 14%, P=.02) and outcome assessors (44 vs. 10%, P=.0004). When blinding was judged feasible, it was reported less often in NPT reports than in PT reports for patients (46 vs. 98%, P <.001), care providers (43 vs. 83%, P=.03), and outcome assessors (72 vs. 98%, P=.0006).Conclusion Blinding appears to be more difficult to achieve and unblinding may occur more often in NPT than PT trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.010

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boutron, I., Tubach, F., Giraudeau, B., & Ravaud, P.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Boutron, Isabelle
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
543-550
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996966348
Cited by
300
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
  • Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
blinding, unblinding, non-pharmacological treatment, pharmacotherapy, hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, randomized controlled trials, trial reporting quality, care providers
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Drug Therapy, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Osteoarthritis, Hip, Epidemiologic Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Osteoarthritis, Knee

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