The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials
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.
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
“In general, low rates of reported blinding checks are a known issue in nonpharmacologic treatments which DTx (58).”
Citations
Cites
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
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
A Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Surgery for Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K. J., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., Hollingsworth, J. C., Ashton, C. M., & Wray, N. P. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa013259 · Cited by 2,146
A CONTROLLED TRIAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY FOR OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE KNEE
Ruce, J. B., Imberly, K., Etersen, A. J. P., Enke, T. E. J. M., Rody, A., Uykendall, D. A. H. K., Ohn, J., Shton, C. A. M. A., & Ray, E. P. W. (2002) · Cited by 1,087
Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07816-9 · Cited by 952
Introducing a placebo needle into acupuncture research
Streitberger, K., & Kleinhenz, J. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)10471-8 · Cited by 906
Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions
McCulloch, P. G., Taylor, I., Sasako, M., Lovett, B., & Griffin, D. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1448 · Cited by 761
Bellamy, N., Kirwan, J., Boers, M., Brooks, P., Strand, V., Tugwell, P., Altman, R. D., Brandt, K. D., Dougados, M., & Lequesne, M. G. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 745
The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Kaptchuk, T. J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00347-4 · Cited by 595
Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-point (PROBE) Study. A novel design for intervention trials
Hansson, L., Hedner, T., & Dahlöf, B. (1992) · Blood Pressure · doi:10.3109/08037059209077502 · Cited by 578
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT Group* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008 · Cited by 2,292
Self-citationBoutron, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT NPT Group* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m17-0046 · Cited by 1,538
Self-citationPreventive Effect of Eccentric Training on Acute Hamstring Injuries in Men’s Soccer
Petersen, J., Thorborg, K., Nielsen, M. B., Budtz–Jørgensen, E., & Hölmich, P. (2011) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546511419277 · Cited by 606
“Blinding of a nonpharmacologic trial can be difficult to achieve.(5,6) We did not find it possible to introduce a convincing sham training program that could have led the players in the control group to believe that they performed a hamstring injury preventive exercise.”
BackgroundVariability in the Assessment of Fracture-Healing in Orthopaedic Trauma Studies
Corrales, L. A., Morshed, S., Bhandari, M., & Miclau, T. (2008) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.01580 · Cited by 417
van der Horst, N., Smits, D., Petersen, J., Goedhart, E. A., & BACKX, F. J. G. (2015) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546515574057 · Cited by 406
“Athletes are taking part in the intervention and know what measures were performed, and we did not produce a sham intervention for blinding purposes.(3) Second, in view of the expected large number of hamstring injuries in this study, it was not feasible to verify injury diagnosis by an independent medical doctor, inc…”
Background
Metadata
- 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
