1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Nitric oxide and its possible implication in ME/CFS (Part 1 of 2)
Andrew Gladman explores the current and historic hypotheses relating to nitric oxide problems in ME/CFS. Part 1 of a 2-part series puts nitric oxide under the microscope and explores what it is, what it does and why it is so frequently discussed in the world of ME/CFS. Part 1 focuses...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Observer bias in RCTs with measurement scale outcomes: review of trials w/ both blinded & nonblinded

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dolphin, Aug 14, 2013.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,870
    Likes:
    6,154
    A minority interest, I imagine.

    This could be a useful reference for people who wanted something on the issue:
     
    Esther12, biophile, Sean and 4 others like this.
  2. biophile

    biophile Places I'd rather be.

    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes:
    4,889
    Similarly (and free full text too) ...

    Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors.

    Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, Ravaud P, Brorson S.

    BMJ. 2012 Feb 27;344:e1119. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1119.

    Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Department 3343, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. ah@cochrane.dk

    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of non-blinded outcome assessment on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes.

    DESIGN: Systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded assessment of the same binary outcome. For each trial we calculated the ratio of the odds ratios--the odds ratio from non-blinded assessments relative to the corresponding odds ratio from blinded assessments. A ratio of odds ratios <1 indicated that non-blinded assessors generated more optimistic effect estimates than blinded assessors. We pooled the individual ratios of odds ratios with inverse variance random effects meta-analysis and explored reasons for variation in ratios of odds ratios with meta-regression. We also analysed rates of agreement between blinded and non-blinded assessors and calculated the number of patients needed to be reclassified to neutralise any bias.

    DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press, and Google Scholar.

    ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised clinical trials with blinded and non-blinded assessment of the same binary outcome.

    RESULTS: We included 21 trials in the main analysis (with 4391 patients); eight trials provided individual patient data. Outcomes in most trials were subjective--for example, qualitative assessment of the patient's function. The ratio of the odds ratios ranged from 0.02 to 14.4. The pooled ratio of odds ratios was 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96), indicating an average exaggeration of the non-blinded odds ratio by 36%. We found no significant association between low ratios of odds ratios and scores for outcome subjectivity (P=0.27); non-blinded assessor's overall involvement in the trial (P=0.60); or outcome vulnerability to non-blinded patients (P=0.52). Blinded and non-blinded assessors agreed in a median of 78% of assessments (interquartile range 64-90%) in the 12 trials with available data. The exaggeration of treatment effects associated with non-blinded assessors was induced by the misclassification of a median of 3% of the assessed patients per trial (1-7%).

    CONCLUSIONS: On average, non-blinded assessors of subjective binary outcomes generated substantially biased effect estimates in randomised clinical trials, exaggerating odds ratios by 36%. This bias was compatible with a high rate of agreement between blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors and driven by the misclassification of few patients.

    PMID: 22371859

    http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1119
     
    Esther12 likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page