Cited by 300Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study

Open access
Moustgaard, Helene, Clayton, Gemma L, Jones, Hayley E, Boutron, Isabelle, Jørgensen, Lars, Laursen, David R T, Olsen, Mette F, Paludan-Müller, Asger +5 more·2020·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives: To study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study). Design: Meta-epidemiological study. Data source: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Meta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic. Review methods: Blinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding. Results: The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses. Conclusion: No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.l6802

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • This overemphasizes the assumed effect of blinding in trials, which is not reflected in clinical data.

    “However, this overemphasizes the assumed effect of blinding in trials, which is not reflected in clinical data [59].”

    From Efficacy and Acceptance of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Meta-analysis. (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Discussion (Mechanisms and implications; page not provided) reports no evidence of an average difference in estimated treatment effects between trials with and without blinding. But it does not establish that blinding's effect is generally overemphasized: the authors say the finding could reflect study limitations, note evidence of bias in specific settings, and recommend retaining blinding as a safeguard. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Meta-epidemiological studies found little to no effect of blinding on treatment results among randomised trials, including a review of oral health trials.

    “based on meta-epidemiological studies [22][23][24][25] that found little to no effect of blinding on treatment results among randomised trials (including a review of oral health trials 26 )”

    From Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Discussion reports no evidence of an average difference in estimated treatment effects between blinded and non-blinded randomised trials. Its “Other studies” section says an oral-health trial study found no evidence of an effect from blinding outcome assessors, but some evidence of a moderate effect from blinding patients. Thus the unqualified “little to no effect” summary misses an important exception for oral-health trials. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent meta-epidemiological study found no evidence that lack of patients' blinding had an impact on estimate effects.

    “However, a recent meta-epidemiological study found no evidence that lack of patients’ blinding had an impact on estimate effects.39”

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

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moustgaard, H., Clayton, G. L., Jones, H. E., Boutron, I., Jørgensen, L., Laursen, D. R. T., Olsen, M. F., Paludan-Müller, A., Ravaud, P., Savović, J., Sterne, J. A. C., Higgins, J. P. T., & Hróbjartsson, A.
Affiliations
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Hôtel-Dieu de Paris (FR)
  • Cochrane (DK)
  • University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Moustgaard, Helene
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-01-21
Volume
368
Issue
2
Pages
l6802
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3001993019
Cited by
300
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 1
FWCI
9.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
  • NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (NF-SI-0617-10145)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10168, NF-SI-0616-10111, NIHR200268, NF-SI-0617-10145)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • University of Bristol
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K025643/1, MR/M014533/1, MR/L004933/1, MR/L004933/2)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
blinding, randomized controlled trials, treatment effect estimation, detection bias, performance bias, trial heterogeneity, meta-analysis bias, double blinding, allocation concealment, attrition, meta-epidemiology, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Epidemiologic Research Design, Observer Variation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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