Cited by 209Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods

Devereaux, P.J., Choi, Peter T.-L., El-Dika, Samer, Bhandari, Mohit, Montori, Victor M., Schünemann, Holger J., Garg, Amit X., Busse, Jason W. +4 more·2004·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background and objective Readers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) commonly assume that what was not reported did not occur. We undertook an observational study to determine whether concealment of randomization or blinding was used in RCTs that failed to report these bias-reducing strategies.Methods We recorded the reporting of concealment of randomization and blinding in 105 RCTs. We subsequently contacted the authors and determined if they had used these methodological safeguards.Results We successfully obtained data from 98 authors. The authors in the full-text publications of these 98 RCTs failed to report the presence or absence of concealment of randomization in 55%, and the blinding status of participants in 26%, health care providers in 64%, data collectors in 84%, outcome assessors in 83%, and data analysts in 96%. In direct contact, authors frequently reported concealing randomization (96%; 95% confidence interval CI=87-100%), blinding participants (20%; 95% CI=7-41%), blinding health care providers (65%; 95% CI=52-77%), blinding data collectors (65%; 95% CI=53-75%), blinding outcome assessors (79%; 95% CI=69-87%), and blinding data analysts (50%; 95% CI=40-60%), despite not reporting the use of these methodological safeguards in their publications.Conclusions Readers should not assume that bias-reducing procedures not reported in an RCT did not occur.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.017

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
Devereaux, P. J., Choi, P. T.-L., El-Dika, S., Bhandari, M., Montori, V. M., Schünemann, H. J., Garg, A. X., Busse, J. W., Heels-Ansdell, D., Ghali, W. A., Manns, B. J., & Guyatt, G. H.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Devereaux, P.J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
57
Issue
12
Pages
1232-1236
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089908284
Cited by
209
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 16
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (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
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
blinding, randomized controlled trials, reporting bias
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Research Personnel, Writing, Bias, 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