METHODOLOGY
Contemporary methodological issues in drug development: the functionality of blinding is poorly studied
Segun Bello,
Corresponding Author
Segun Bello
Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Public Health, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Ibadan Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
Correspondence
Dr. Segun Bello, Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Public Health Building, College of Medicine, UCH, Ibadan.
Tel: +234 803 7043 635;
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSegun Bello,
Corresponding Author
Segun Bello
Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Public Health, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Ibadan Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
Correspondence
Dr. Segun Bello, Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Public Health Building, College of Medicine, UCH, Ibadan.
Tel: +234 803 7043 635;
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorFirst published: 26 April 2017
Abstract
Blinding is an important methodological principle in drug development. This article reviews the functionality of blinding within the context of bias minimizing structures of randomized clinical trials. Blinding is not well understood and not well studied. The risk of bias domain ‘blinding’ is commonly assumed to be ‘low-risk’ whenever readers come across randomized clinical trials labeled as ‘blinded’. However, empirical evidence has shown that this assumption cannot be taken for granted. The functionality of blinding techniques in preventing bias requires further studies.
References
- 1Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technology Assessment 1999; 3(12): 1–98.
10.3310/hta3120 Google Scholar
- 2Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352(9128): 609–13.
- 3Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 163(6): 493–501.
- 4Franklin B, Majault RL, Sallin BJ, D'Arcet B, Guillotin JI, Lavoisier A. Report of the commissioners charged by the king with the examination of animal magnetism. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 2002; 50(4): 332–63.
- 5Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 1998; 72(3): 389–433.
- 6Mak IWY, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. American Journal of Translational Research 2014; 6(2): 114–18.
- 7van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O'Collins V. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine 2010; 7(3): e000245.
- 8Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomized trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005; 365(9465): 1159–62.
- 9Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, Fry D, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE 2009; 4(11): e7634.
- 10Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RBM, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2014; 14: 43.
- 11Crossley NA, Sena E, Goehler J, Horn J, van der Worp B, Bath PMW, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies: a metaepidemiological approach. Stroke 2008; 39: 929–34.
- 12Currie GL, Delaney A, Bennett M, Dickenson AH, Egan KJ, Vesterinen HM, et al. Animal models of bone cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analyses. Pain 2013; 154: 917–26.
- 13Hirst TC, Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Macleod MR, Whittle R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of temozolomide in animal models of glioma: was clinical efficacy predicted? British Journal of Cancer 2013; 108: 64–71.
- 14Vesterinen HM, Currie GL, Carter S, Mee S, Watzlawick R, Egan KJ, et al. Systematic review and stratified meta-analysis of the efficacy of RhoA and Rho kinase inhibitors in animal models of ischaemic stroke. Systematic Reviews 2013; 20: 33.
10.1186/2046-4053-2-33 Google Scholar
- 15Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLOS Biology 2010; 8(6): e1000412.
- 16Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 2012; 490: 187–91.
- 17 Medical Research Council. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. BMJ 1948; 2: 769–82.
- 18Armitage P. Fisher, Bradford Hill, and randomization. International Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 32: 925–28.
- 19Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408–12.
- 20Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomized trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 2002; 359: 515–19.
- 21Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomized trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002; 359: 614–18.
- 22Jüni P, Altman D, Egger M. Assessing quality of controlled trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42–6.
- 23Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012; 157(6): 429–38.
- 24 JPT Higgins, DG Altman, JAC Sterne, editors. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: JPT Higgins, S Green, editor(s). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Chichester, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
- 25Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 2012; 344: e1119.
- 26Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ 2013; 185(4): E201–11.
- 27Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Rasmussen JV, Hilden J, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. International Journal of Epidemiology 2014; 43(3): 937–48.
- 28Byington RP, Curb JD, Mattson ME. Assessment of double-blindness at the conclusion of the beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial. JAMA 1985; 253(12): 1733–36.
- 29Thwaites G, Auckland C, Barlow G, Cunningham R, Davies G, Edgeworth J, et al. Adjunctive rifampicin to reduce early mortality from staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012; 13: 241.
- 30Eby GA, Davis DR, Halcomb WW. Reduction in duration of common cold by zinc gluconate lozenges in a double-blind study. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1984: 25(1): 20–24.
- 31Bello S, Moustgaard H, Hróbjartsson A. The risk of unblinding was infrequently and incompletely reported in 300 randomised clinical trial publications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2014; 67(10): 1059–69.
- 32Hróbjartsson A, Forfang E, Haahr MT, Als-Nielsen B, Brorson S. Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding. International Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 36: 654–63.
- 33Sacket DL. Turning a blind eye: why we don't test for blindness at the end of our trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 1136.
- 34Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Turning a blind eye: testing the success of blinding and the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2004; 328: 1135.
- 35Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ, et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004; 57(12): 1232–26.
- 36Hill CL, LaValley MP, Felson DT. Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002; 55: 783–86.
- 37Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published trials. JAMA 2004; 291(20): 2457–65.
- 38Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 2010; 340: 723.
- 39Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869.
- 40Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clinical Trials 2006; 3: 360–65.
- 41Bello S, Moustgaard H, Hróbjartsson A. Unreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in four out of ten randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in one of ten trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2016 (Accepted).
- 42Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacological than pharmacologic trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004; 57(6): 543–50.
- 43Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, Moher D, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Medicine 2007; 4(2): e61.
- 44Boutron I, Estellat C, Guittet L, Dechartres A, Sackett DL, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review. PLoS Medicine 2006; 3(10): e425.
- 45Bello S, Wei M, Hilden J, Hróbjartsson A. The matching quality of experimental and control interventions in blinded pharmacological randomised clinical trials: a methodological systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2016; 16: 18.
- 46 World Health Organization. Good manufacturing practices: supplementary guidelines for the manufacture of investigational pharmaceutical products for clinical trials in humans. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 863(Annex 7), 1996; 97–108.
- 47 Food and Drug Administration. Guideline on the preparation of investigational new drug products (human and animal). 1991.
- 48 Health Canada. Good manufacturing practices guidelines drugs used in clinical trials. Annex 13: 2009.
