PubMed · 9424569
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L A Stewart, M K Parmar, J F Tierney. 1998-01-01. Meta-analyses and large randomized, controlled trials.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9424569/
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.
When sample size is recalculated using unblinded interim data, use of the usual t-test at the end of a study may lead to an elevated type I error rate. This paper describes a numerical quadrature investigation to calculate the true probability of rejection as a function of the time of the recalculation, the magnitude of the detectable treatment effect, and the ratio of the guessed to the true variance. We consider both 'restricted' designs, those that require final sample size at least as large as the originally calculated size, and 'unrestricted' designs, those that permit smaller final sample sizes than originally calculated. Our results indicate that the bias in the type I error rate is often negligible, especially in restricted designs. Some sets of parameters, however, induce non-trivial bias in the unrestricted design.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.