PubMed · 8928522
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Bias. 1996. [Statistics--lying, but correctly!].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8928522/
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.
Epidemiologic studies routinely suffer from bias due to exposure measurement error. In this paper, the authors examine the effect of measurement error when the exposure variable of interest is constrained by a lower limit. This is an important consideration, since often in epidemiologic studies an exposure variable is constrained by a lower limit such as zero or a nonzero detection limit. In this paper, attenuation of exposure-disease associations is defined within the framework of a classical model of uncorrelated additive error. Then, the special case of nonlinearity due to the effect of a lower threshold is examined. A general model is developed to characterize the effect of random measurement error when there is a lower threshold for recorded values. Findings are illustrated under the assumption that the true exposure follows the lognormal and gamma distributions. The authors show that the direction and magnitude of bias in estimated exposure-response associations depends on the population distribution of the exposure, the magnitude of the recording threshold, the value assigned to below-threshold measurement results, and the variance in the measured exposure due to random measurement error.