Cited by 56Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory

Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Pildal, Julie, Chan, An-Wen, Haahr, Mette T., Altman, Douglas G., Gøtzsche, Peter C.·2009·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To compare the reporting on blinding in protocols and articles describing randomized controlled trials.Study design and setting We studied 73 protocols of trials approved by the scientific/ethical committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, 1994 and 1995, and their corresponding publications.Results Three out of 73 trials (4%) reported blinding in the protocol that contradicted that in the publication (e.g., "open" vs. "double blind"). The proportion of "double-blind" trials with a clear description of the blinding of participants increased from 11 out of 58 (19%) when based on publications alone to 39 (67%) when adding the information in the protocol. The similar proportions for the blinding of health care providers were 2 (3%) and 22 (38%); and for the blinding of data collectors, they were 8 (14%) and 14 (24%). In 52 of 58 publications (90%), it was unclear whether all patients, health care providers, and data collectors had been blinded. In 4 of the 52 trials (7%), the protocols clarified that all three key trial persons had been blinded.Conclusions The reporting on blinding in both trial protocols and publications is often inadequate. We suggest developing international guidelines for the reporting of trial protocols and public access to protocols.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.003

Cites

20 of 20 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
Hróbjartsson, A., Pildal, J., Chan, A.-W., Haahr, M. T., Altman, D. G., & Gøtzsche, P. C.
Affiliations
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
62
Issue
9
Pages
967-973
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982848674
Cited by
56
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (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 guidelines
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research Design, Randomized Controlled 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