Cited by 137Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Towards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up-to-date review

Open access
Kolahi, Jafar, Bang, Heejung, Park, Jongbae·2009·Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00494.x

Cites

4 of 4 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?

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: 25

  1. [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. [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. [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
  4. [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
  5. [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
  6. [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
  7. [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
  8. [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
  9. [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
  10. [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
  11. [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
  12. [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
  13. [16]Schulz KF Chalmers I Altman DG The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials Ann Intern Med 2002 136 254 9 11827510
  14. [17]Henneicke-von Zepelin HH Assessment of blinding in clinical trials Contemp Clin Trials 2005 26 512 author reply 14–5 15936250
  15. [18]Hemila H Assessment of blinding may be inappropriate after the trial Contemp Clin Trials 2005 26 512 4 author reply 14–5 15951244
  16. [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
  17. [20]Park J Bang H Canette I Blinding in clinical trials, time to do it better Complement Ther Med 2008 16 121 3 18534323
  18. [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
  19. [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
  20. [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
  21. [24]Bang H Ni L Davis CE Assessment of blinding in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 2004 25 143 56 15020033
  22. [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
  23. [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
  24. [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
  25. [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

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
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
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