SeriesBlinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what
Section snippets
Potential effects of blinding
If participants are not blinded, knowledge of group assignment can affect responses to the intervention received.3 Participants who know that they have been assigned to a group who will receive a new treatment might harbour favourable expectations or increased apprehension. Those assigned to standard treatment, however, might feel deprived or relieved. Despite evidence to suggest that new treatments are as likely to be worse as they are to be better than standard treatments,6 participants
Lexicon of blinding
Non-blinded (open or open label) denotes trials in which everyone involved knows who has received which interventions throughout the trial. Blinding (masking) indicates that knowledge of the intervention assignments is hidden from participants, trial investigators, or assessors.
The terminology single blind usually means that one of the three categories of individuals (normally participant rather than investigator) remains unaware of intervention assignments throughout the trial.9 A single-blind
Masking or blinding
Some people prefer the term masking to blinding to describe the same procedure. Masking might be more appropriate in trials that involve participants who have impaired vision, and could be less confusing in trials in which blindness is an outcome.3 Blinding, however, conveys a strong bias prevention message. Apparently, blinding terminology emerged when Benjamin Franklin and colleagues19 actually blindfolded participants to shield them from knowledge in their assessments of the therapeutic
Placebos and blinding
Interventions (treatments) sometimes have no effect on the outcomes being studied.3 When an ineffective intervention is administered to participants in the context of a well-designed randomised controlled trial, however, beneficial effects on participants' attitudes sometimes occur, which in turn affect outcomes.10 Researchers refer to this phenomena as the placebo effect.
A placebo refers to a pharmacologically inactive agent that investigators administer to participants in the control group of
Does blinding prevent bias?
Some investigators, readers, and editors overstate the importance of blinding in prevention of bias. Indeed, some consider a randomised trial as high quality if it is double blind—ie, as if double blinding is the sine qua non of a randomised controlled trial.3 Unfortunately, scientific life is not that simple. A randomised trial can be methodologically sound and not be double blind or, conversely, double blind and not methodologically sound. Lasagna12 captured that notion long ago: “Let us
What to look for in descriptions of blinding
In general, if researchers describe a trial as double-blind, readers can assume that they have avoided bias. Empirical evidence lends support to this recommendation. As suggested in the CONSORT guidelines,24, 25 however, investigators should not use only the single-blind, double-blind, or triple-blind terminology, but should also explicitly state who was blinded, and how. Moreover, if the researchers contend that the trial investigators, participants, and assessors were blinded—ie, double
Conclusion
Blinding embodies a rich history spanning over two centuries. Most researchers worldwide understand blinding terminology, but confusion lurks beyond a general comprehension. Investigators should clearly explicate those blinded and not blinded in their trial, rather than only labeling their trial as single-blind, double-blind, or triple-blind. Readers should expect such clarity when reading and judging a trial report.
We thank Willard Cates and David L Sackett for their helpful comments on an
References (34)
The controlled trial: theory and practice
J Chronic Dis
(1955)Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis
Control Clin Trials
(1989)- et al.
Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials: agenda for the editor
Controlled Clin Trials
(1980) - et al.
Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measure
Fertil Steril
(1996) - et al.
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
Lancet
(1998) - et al.
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports or parallel-group trials
Lancet
(2001) - et al.
Effect of sibutramine on weight maintenance after weight loss: a randomised trial. STORM Study Group
Lancet
(2000) Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine
Bull Hist Med
(1998)- et al.
Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials
JAMA
(2001) - et al.
The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials
Ann Intern Med
(2002)