Cited by 50Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial

Lowe, CJ Minns, Wilson, MS, Sackley, CM, Barker, KL·2011·Clinical Rehabilitation

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0269215510380824

Cites

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?

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
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