PubMed · 9329443
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R B Turner. 1997. Treating the common cold.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(97)80096-0
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 authors summarize their experience in the conduct of meta-analysis of individual participants' data (MIPD) with time-to-event analyses in the field of genetic epidemiology. The MIPD offers many advantages compared with a meta-analysis of the published literature. These include standardization of case definitions, outcomes, and covariates; inclusion of updated information; the ability to fully test the assumptions of time-to-event models; better control of confounding; standardization of analyses of genetic loci that are in linkage disequilibrium; evaluation of alternative genetic models and multiple genes; consistent treatment of subpopulations; assessment of sampling bias; and the establishment of an international collaboration with the capability to prospectively update the meta-analyses and synthesize new information on multiple genetic loci and outcomes. The disadvantages of a MIPD compared with a meta-analysis of the published literature are that a much greater commitment of time and resources is required to collect primary data and to coordinate a large collaborative project. An MIPD may collect additional, unpublished data, but it is possible that not all published data may be contributed at the individual level. For questions that justify the required intensive effort, the MIPD method is a useful tool to help clarify the role of candidate genes in complex human diseases.