Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial
Abstract
Objectives: (1) To develop trial protocols which promote the achievement of blind outcome assessment. (2) To report outcome assessor beliefs regarding group allocation at follow-up assessments. (3) To document and describe instances of unblinding occurring during the trial to assist and inform rehabilitation researchers and clinicians. Design: Prospective longitudinal observational study. Setting: An NHS Hospital Trust specializing in orthopaedic surgery. Subjects: One hundred and seven patients participating in a prospective pragmatic randomized controlled trial investigating physiotherapy rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty, plus three outcome assessors. Interventions: A protocol was developed using available research and designed to minimize instances of unblinding during a physiotherapy rehabilitation trial. Administrative, office, patient and research staff procedures were included. Main measures: Trial questionnaires measured blind outcome assessment responses at 3 and 12 months post surgery. The outcome assessor kept a field diary recording the events surrounding instances of unblinding. Data underwent descriptive and content analysis. Results: Blind outcome assessment was believed successful for n = 74 (81.32%) assessments at 3-month follow-up, and n = 83 (91.21%) at 12 months. Forty instances ( n = 28 participants) of unblinding were described in the field diary. While the main cause of unblinding was participants telling the outcome assessor, in 12.5% of events the assessor drew the wrong conclusion regarding group allocation. Not all unblinding events were remembered at subsequent assessments, even in this relatively small trial. Conclusions: Blind outcome assessment was considered achievable in this trial. Specific trial protocols enabled blinding beliefs to be reported and instances of unblinding to be described.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Asking participants not to discuss their treatment to avoid unblinding is a method frequently reported in the existing literature.
“The most common method reported was avoiding unblinding by participants through asking them not to discuss their treatment, a method frequently reported in the existing literature [5, 14, 18, 23].”
From Blinding outcome assessors in randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions: how is it done? A narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
Approaches to managing communication within the team overlap with those reported in previous studies.
“These approaches overlap with those reported in previous studies [8, 14, 18, 19, 23] and reflect the many considerations required to ensure blinding of outcome assessors.”
From Blinding outcome assessors in randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions: how is it done? A narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 50
- Authors
- Lowe, C. M., Wilson, M., Sackley, C., & Barker, K.
- Affiliations
- Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre (GB)
- Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
- Physiotherapy Research Unit, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
- Venue
- Clinical Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-10-22
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 264-274
- ISSN
- 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0873
- OpenAlex
- W2139835394
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (N&AHP/C3/RDA4/014)
- 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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- blinding, unblinding, physiotherapy rehabilitation, total knee arthroplasty, pragmatic randomized controlled trial, orthopedic rehabilitation, field diary
- MeSH terms
- Double-Blind Method, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Single-Blind Method, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Physical Therapy Modalities
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