PubMed · 12964336
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H Baxter. 2001. Understanding research: 2. Ensuring reliability and validity.. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2001.10.8.26116
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The missing-indicator method and conditional logistic regression have been recommended as alternative approaches for data analysis in matched case-control studies with missing exposure values. The authors evaluated the performance of the two methods using Monte Carlo simulation. Data were generated from a 1:m matched design based on McNemar's 2 x 2 tables with four scenarios for missing values: completely-at-random, case-dependent, exposure-dependent, and case/exposure-dependent. In their analysis, the authors used conditional logistic regression for complete pairs and the missing-indicator method for all pairs. For 1:1 matched studies, given no confounding between exposure and disease, the two methods yielded unbiased estimates. Otherwise, conditional logistic regression produced unbiased estimates with empirical confidence interval coverage similar to nominal coverage under the first three missing-value scenarios, whereas the missing-indicator method produced slightly more bias and lower confidence interval coverage. An increased number of matched controls was associated with slightly more bias and lower confidence interval coverage. Under the case/exposure-dependent missing-value scenario, neither method performed satisfactorily; this indicates the need for more sophisticated statistical methods for handling such missing values. Overall, compared with the missing-indicator method, conditional logistic regression provided a slight advantage in terms of bias and coverage probability, at the cost of slightly reduced statistical power and efficiency.