Cited by 527Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors

Open access
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Thomsen, Ann Sofia Skou, Emanuelsson, Frida, Tendal, Britta, Hilden, Jørgen, Boutron, Isabelle, Ravaud, Philippe, Brorson, Stig·2013·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation. RESULTS: We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size -0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2) = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression. INTERPRETATION: We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.120744

Cites

53 of 53 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: 4

  1. [2]2. Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A. Who is blind in randomised clinical trials? An analysis of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Tri- als 2006;3:360-5.
  2. [21]21. Meltzer HY, Alphs L, Green AI, et al. Clozapine treatment for suicidality in schizophrenia: International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003;60:82-91.
  3. [34]34. Realmuto GM, Erickson WD, Yellin AM, et al. Clinical compar- ison of thiothixene and thioridazine in schizophrenic adoles- cents. Am J Psychiatry 1984;141:440-2.
  4. [41]41. Dodd DC. Blind slide reading or the uninformed versus the informed pathologist. Comments Toxicol 1988;2:88-91.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hróbjartsson, A., Thomsen, A. S. S., Emanuelsson, F., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., Boutron, I., Ravaud, P., & Brorson, S.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2013-01-28
Volume
185
Issue
4
Pages
E201-E211
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2006175454
Cited by
527
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
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 › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
observer bias, subjective outcomes, risk of bias, effect size estimation, bias in clinical trials
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Observer Variation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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