PubMed · 10761357
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G A Morgan, J A Gliner, R J Harmon. 2000. Internal validity.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200004000-00024
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.
When performing a meta-analysis, interest often centres on finding explanations for heterogeneity in the data, rather than on producing a single summary estimate. Such exploratory analyses are frequently undertaken with published, study-level data, using techniques of meta-analytic regression. Our goal was to explore a real-world example for which both published, group-level and individual patient-level data were available, and to compare the substantive conclusions reached by both methods. We studied the benefits of anti-lymphocyte antibody induction therapy among renal transplant patients in five randomized trials, focusing on whether there are subgroups of patients in whom therapy might prove particularly beneficial. Allograft failure within 5 years was the endpoint studied. We used a variety of analytic approaches to the group-level data, including weighted least-squares regression (N=5 studies), logistic regression (N=628, the total number of subjects), and a hierarchical Bayesian approach. We fit logistic regression models to the patient-level data. In the patient-level analysis, we found that treatment was significantly more effective among patients with elevated (20 per cent or more) panel reactive antibodies (PRA) than among patients without elevated PRA. These patients comprise a small (about 15 per cent of patients) subgroup of patients that benefited from therapy. The group-level analyses failed to detect this interaction. We recommend using individual patient data, when feasible, to study patient characteristics, in order to avoid the potential for ecological bias introduced by group-level analyses.