Cited by 462Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPain Management and Placebo Effect

Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies

Open access
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Emanuelsson, Frida, Skou Thomsen, Ann Sofia, Hilden, Jørgen, Brorson, Stig·2014·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blinding patients in clinical trials is a key methodological procedure, but the expected degree of bias due to nonblinded patients on estimated treatment effects is unknown. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials with one sub-study (i.e. experimental vs control) involving blinded patients and another, otherwise identical, sub-study involving nonblinded patients. Within each trial, we compared the difference in effect sizes (i.e. standardized mean differences) between the sub-studies. A difference <0 indicates that nonblinded patients generated a more optimistic effect estimate. We pooled the differences with random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis, and explored reasons for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Our main analysis included 12 trials (3869 patients). The average difference in effect size for patient-reported outcomes was -0.56 (95% confidence interval -0.71 to -0.41), (I(2)=60%, P=0.004), i.e. nonblinded patients exaggerated the effect size by an average of 0.56 standard deviation, but with considerable variation. Two of the 12 trials also used observer-reported outcomes, showing no indication of exaggerated effects due lack of patient blinding. There was a larger effect size difference in 10 acupuncture trials [-0.63 (-0.77 to -0.49)], than in the two non-acupuncture trials [-0.17 (-0.41 to 0.07)]. Lack of patient blinding also increased attrition and use of co-interventions: ratio of control group attrition risk 1.79 (1.18 to 2.70), and ratio of control group co-intervention risk 1.55 (0.99 to 2.43). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence of pronounced bias due to lack of patient blinding in complementary/alternative randomized clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyu115

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A meta-epidemiological study of blinding showed that unblinded RCTs overestimated the outcome effect by 0.56 standard deviations.

    “a meta-epidemiological study of blinding showed that unblinded RCTs overestimated the outcome effect by 0.56 standard deviations”

    From Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts (2022) · cites this paper as Hróbjartsson et al., 2014

    The Abstract and Discussion report an average exaggeration of 0.56 standard deviations, but specifically for patient-reported outcomes in 12 trials comparing blinded and nonblinded patient sub-studies, with considerable variation. The paper describes itself as a systematic review of those trials, not a meta-epidemiological study of unblinded RCTs generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both patients and clinicians often correctly guess whether they are in the active drug or placebo group, likely enhancing responses in the drug group and reducing responses in the placebo group.

    “Both patients and clinicians often correctly guess whether they are in the active drug or placebo group, likely enhancing responses in the drug group and reducing responses in the placebo group (Chen et al., 2011, 2015; Hróbjartsson et al., 2014; Margraf et al., 1991; Baethge et al., 2013).”

    From Revisiting the SSRI vs. placebo debate in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: the role of expectancy effects, neural responsivity, and monoamine transporters (2025) · cites this paper as Hróbjartsson et al., 2014

    The Discussion and Bias mechanisms sections report that nonblinded patients produced larger patient-reported treatment effects, apparently through response bias and placebo effects. But the review does not establish that patients or clinicians often correctly guess drug-versus-placebo assignments, or that such guesses enhance drug-group responses while reducing placebo-group responses. Its trials predominantly involved acupuncture, not active-drug comparisons. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The effects of the intervention may have been overestimated because participants were not blinded and substance use was self-reported.

    “There is also the possibility that the effects of the intervention were overestimated because participants were not blinded (Hrobjartsson 2014), and substance use was self-reported.”

    From Motivational interviewing for substance use reduction (2023) · cites this paper as Hrobjartsson 2014

  • We are not able to blind patients to their condition, which may lead to bias and exaggeration of the effect.

    “We are not able to blind patients to their condition, which may lead to bias and exaggeration of the effect [45].”
  • Side effects associated with SSRIs can inadvertently reveal participants' group assignments, undermining the blind.

    “In particular, side effects associated with SSRIs can inadvertently reveal participants' group assignments, undermining the blind.”

    From Revisiting the SSRI vs. placebo debate in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: the role of expectancy effects, neural responsivity, and monoamine transporters (2025) · cites this paper as Hróbjartsson et al., 2014

    The Introduction and Discussion address the consequences of patients knowing their treatment assignments, chiefly in complementary or alternative therapy trials. Searches for SSRIs, antidepressants, side effects, and adverse events found no passage saying that drug side effects reveal assignments or break the blind. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]6. Hro ´bjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS et al. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials: A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and non-blind sub- studies. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1272-83.
  2. [46]46. Price D, Hillyer EV, van der Molen T. Efficacy versus effective- ness trials: informing guidelines for asthma management. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;13:50-57.
  3. [54]54. Melzack R. Acupuncture and pain mechanisms. Anaesthetist 1976;25:204-07.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hróbjartsson, A., Emanuelsson, F., Skou Thomsen, A. S., Hilden, J., & Brorson, S.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2014-05-30
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
1272-1283
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2147802232
Cited by
462
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
treatment effect estimation, patient-reported outcomes, observer-reported outcomes, acupuncture trials, complementary and alternative medicine, attrition, co-interventions
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Humans, 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