Cited by 135Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a retrospective study of published trial reports

Juul, Sophie, Gluud, Christian, Simonsen, Sebastian, Frandsen, Frederik Weischer, Kirsch, Irving, Jakobsen, Janus Christian·2021·BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded. Design: Retrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018. Setting: Trial reports published in World Psychiatry , JAMA Psychiatry , Lancet Psychiatry , American Journal of Psychiatry , British Journal of Psychiatry , or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics . Main outcome measures: Blinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report. Results: 63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report. Conclusions: Blinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111407

Cites

111 of 111 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

2 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Juul, S., Gluud, C., Simonsen, S., Frandsen, F. W., Kirsch, I., & Jakobsen, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Mental Health Services (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Juul, Sophie
Venue
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-09-30
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
109-109
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 2515-446X
  • 2515-4478
OpenAlex
W3091014787
Cited by
135
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
blinding, randomized controlled trials, psychological intervention, risk of bias, null hypothesis rejection
MeSH terms
Humans, Retrospective Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Report

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