Towards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up-to-date review
Open accessAbstract
Abstract –: The CONSORT statement recommended that investigators should clearly report which key trial persons were blinded to treatment allocation and test for the success of blinding. Clinical researchers, however, more often than not overlook the assessment of the success of blinding. The severe under‐reporting on the success of blinding may improve with awareness of existing quantitative methods. The two statistical methods, James’ blinding index (BI) and Bang’s BI, are currently available. Subjects could be asked to guess their treatment assignment, possibly with an option to express the degree of certainty. Assessments of blinding at various points may serve different purposes, i.e. to evaluate comparability between experimental versus control treatments before the trial by the third party; to examine further comparability and credibility of the control treatment and patients’ expectation about treatment received in early stage of the trial, and to summarize the overall maintenance of the blinding success at the end of the trial. In this article, we review BIs and how to use these methods along with discussion of other issues in blinding assessment and reporting. We contend the two BIs that were independently developed but carry complementary properties would characterize blinding behaviours in clinical trials qualitatively as well as quantitatively, and may also shed some lights on the interpretation of the study findings. Finally we urge the Item 11b of the CONSORT statement to be revised to require the assessment/reporting of blinding success for all trials that adopt blinding schemes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Blinding effectiveness was assessed via the James Blinding Index.
“Blinding effectiveness was assessed via the James Blinding Index (Bang et al., 2004; Kolahi et al., 2009).”
From A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for bipolar disorder: Safety, tolerability, mood and cognitive effects (2025) · cites this paper as Kolahi et al., 2009
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
Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments
Boutron, I., Guittet, L., Estellat, C., Moher, D., Hróbjartsson, A., & Ravaud, P. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040061 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Devereaux, P. J. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.2000 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscripts
Gøtzsche, P. C. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00263-4 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Desbiens, N. A. (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-133-4-200008150-00016 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- [1]Altman DG Schulz KF Moher D Egger M Davidoff F Elbourne D The revised consort statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration Ann Intern Med 2001 134 663 94 11304107
- [2]Hrobjartsson A Forfang E Haahr MT Als-Nielsen B Brorson S Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding Int J Epidemiol 2007 36 654 63 17440024
- [3]Fergusson D Glass KC Waring D Shapiro S Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials BMJ 2004 328 432 14761905 PMC344259
- [5]Boutron I Estellat C Guittet L Dechartres A Sackett DL Hrobjartsson A Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review PLoS Med 2006 3 e425 17076559 PMC1626553
- [6]Haahr MT Hrobjartsson A Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors Clin Trials 2006 3 360 5 17060210
- [8]Kolahi J Abrishami M Multiple-blind: towards a new blinding protocol for future generations of clinical trials Med Hypotheses 2009 May 30 Epub ahead of print 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.04.040 19487084 · DOI
- [10]Park J White AR Stevinson C Ernst E Who are we blinding? A systematic review of blinded randomised controlled trials Perfusion 2001 14 296 304
- [11]Lao L Bergman S Hamilton GR Langenberg P Berman B Evaluation of acupuncture for pain control after oral surgery: a placebo-controlled trial Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999 125 567 72 10326816
- [12]Boutron I Estellat C Ravaud P A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable J Clin Epidemiol 2005 58 1220 6 16291465
- [13]LaRosa JC Applegate W Crouse JR 3rd Hunninghake DB Grimm R Knopp R Cholesterol lowering in the elderly. Results of the cholesterol reduction in seniors program (crisp) pilot study Arch Intern Med 1994 154 529 39 8122946
- [14]Walter SD Awasthi S Jeyaseelan L Pre-trial evaluation of the potential for unblinding in drug trials: a prototype example Contemp Clin Trials 2005 26 459 68 16054578
- [15]Rees JR Wade TJ Levy DA Colford JM Jr Hilton JF Changes in beliefs identify unblinding in randomized controlled trials: a method to meet consort guidelines Contemp Clin Trials 2005 26 25 37 15837450
- [16]Schulz KF Chalmers I Altman DG The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials Ann Intern Med 2002 136 254 9 11827510
- [17]Henneicke-von Zepelin HH Assessment of blinding in clinical trials Contemp Clin Trials 2005 26 512 author reply 14–5 15936250
- [18]Hemila H Assessment of blinding may be inappropriate after the trial Contemp Clin Trials 2005 26 512 4 author reply 14–5 15951244
- [19]Sackett DL Turning a blind eye: why we don't test for blindness at the end of our trials BMJ 2004 328 1136 15130997 PMC406365
- [20]Park J Bang H Canette I Blinding in clinical trials, time to do it better Complement Ther Med 2008 16 121 3 18534323
- [21]Desbiens NA In randomized controlled trials, should subjects in both placebo and drug groups be expected to guess that they are taking drug 50% of the time? Med Hypotheses 2002 59 227 32 12208144
- [22]James KE Bloch DA Lee KK Kraemer HC Fuller RK An index for assessing blindness in a multicentre clinical trial: Disulfiram for alcohol cessation – a VA cooperative study Stat Med 1996 15 1421 34 8841652
- [23]Colford JM Jr Rees JR Wade TJ Khalakdina A Hilton JF Ergas IJ Participant blinding and gastrointestinal illness in a randomized, controlled trial of an in-home drinking water intervention Emerg Infect Dis 2002 8 29 36 11749745 PMC2730258
- [24]Bang H Ni L Davis CE Assessment of blinding in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 2004 25 143 56 15020033
- [25]Park J White AR James MA Hemsley AG Johnson P Chambers J Acupuncture for subacute stroke rehabilitation: a sham-controlled, subject- and assessor-blind, randomized trial Arch Intern Med 2005 165 2026 31 16186474
- [27]Hertzberg V Chimowitz M Lynn M Chester C Asbury W Cotsonis G Use of dose modification schedules is effective for blinding trials of warfarin: evidence from the WASID study Clin Trials 2008 5 23 30 18283076 PMC3506390
- [28]Kolahi J Soolari A Ghalayani P Varshosaz J Fazilaty M Newly formulated chlorhexidine gluconate chewing gum that gives both anti-plaque effectiveness and an acceptable taste: a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial J Int Acad Periodontol 2008 10 38 44 18564727
- [29]Bausell RB Lao L Bergman S Lee WL Berman BM Is acupuncture analgesia an expectancy effect? Preliminary evidence based on participants' perceived assignments in two placebo-controlled trials Eval Health Prof 2005 28 9 26 15677384
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ros, T., Enriquez-Geppert, S., Zotev, V., Young, K. D., Wood, G., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Wan, F., Vuilleumier, P., Vialatte, F., Van De Ville, D., et al. (2020) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awaa009 · Cited by 399 · see citing works
Blinding and expectancy confounds in psychedelic randomized controlled trials
Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Forsyth, A., & Lumley, T. (2021) · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1080/17512433.2021.1933434 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Aday, J. S., Heifets, B. D., Pratscher, S. D., Bradley, E., Rosen, R., & Woolley, J. D. (2022) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-022-06123-7 · Cited by 237 · see citing works
Juul, S., Gluud, C., Simonsen, S., Frandsen, F. W., Kirsch, I., & Jakobsen, J. C. (2021) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111407 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Optimal Design of Clinical Trials of Dietary Interventions in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction
Staudacher, H. M., Yao, C. K., Chey, W. D., & Whelan, K. (2022) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001732 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“Successful blinding might be indicated by high uncertainty about allocation or an equal distribution of correct and incorrect responses (40).”
BackgroundBlinding and expectancy confounds in psychedelic randomised controlled trials
Muthukumaraswamy, S., Forsyth, A., & Lumley, T. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q2hzm · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Trapp, N. T., Muller Ewald, V. A., Pace, B. D., Wendt, L., Garrett, L., Penaluna, B., Miller, J., Purgianto, A., van der Plas, E., Magnotta, V. A., et al. (2025) · Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.transm.2024.100082 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kolahi, J., Bang, H., & Park, J.
- Affiliations
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kolahi, Jafar
- Venue
- Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-11-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 477-484
- ISSN
- 0301-5661 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0528
- PMC
- PMC3044082
- OpenAlex
- W1970318981
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 0.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024996)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- CONSORT statement, trial reporting
- MeSH terms
- Double-Blind Method, Humans, Time Factors, 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