Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 14978654

Control groups appropriate for behavioral interventions.

Abstract

There are 4 sources of bias in clinical trials: investigator bias, patient expectation (placebo response), ascertainment bias (inadvertent selection of an unrepresentative sample), and nonspecific effects such as the normal waxing and waning of symptoms over time and the quality of the doctor-patient relationship. In drug trials, these biases are adequately controlled by comparing active to inert pills, randomly assigning subjects to treatments, blinding both the investigator and subject to group assignment, and testing subjects at multiple sites. However, there are special problems with conducting clinical trials of behavioral or psychological interventions that render these controls inadequate. It is impossible to blind the experimenter to which treatment is active, it is difficult to identify a control treatment that is inactive but just as credible to the subject, and doctor-patient relationship variables are more important than in drug trials. The inability to blind the experimenter can be circumvented by having an independent, blinded investigator assess the outcome, and doctor-patient effects can be controlled by using multiple, experienced therapists. The most difficult problem, identifying an appropriate control treatment, can be solved by adhering to 2 principles: the control treatment should be plausible, and it should not have a significant impact on the mechanism that is thought to explain the effectiveness of the investigational treatment. Investigators should confirm that these 2 goals have been achieved by monitoring expectation of benefit with a treatment credibility questionnaire, measuring changes in process variables (variables that reflect the presumed mechanism of treatment), and monitoring differential dropout rates.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William E Whitehead. 2004. Control groups appropriate for behavioral interventions.. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.038

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

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 &#xb1; 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.

Bias↗

Supplementary analysis of probabilities at the termination of a group sequential phase II trial.

We consider estimation of various probabilities after termination of a group sequential phase II trial. A motivating example is that the stopping rule of a phase II oncologic trial is determined solely based on response to a drug treatment, and at the end of the trial estimating the rate of toxicity and response is desirable. The conventional maximum likelihood estimator (sample proportion) of a probability is shown to be biased, and two alternative estimators are proposed to correct for bias, a bias-reduced estimator obtained by using Whitehead's bias-adjusted approach, and an unbiased estimator from the Rao-Blackwell method of conditioning. All three estimation procedures are shown to have certain invariance property in bias. Moreover, estimators of a probability and their bias and precision can be evaluated through the observed response rate and the stage at which the trial stops, thus avoiding extensive computation.

Bias↗