Blinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and cats

Michelle Giuffrida, Kimberley A. Agnello, Dorothy C. Brown

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective-To review blinding terminology used in published reports of veterinary clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine how practicing veterinarians interpret blinding terminology. Design-Retrospective literature review and prospective veterinarian survey. Sample-195 parallel-group clinical RCTs published from June 2004 to June 2010 in 11 peer-reviewed journals; 21 practicing veterinarians at a university-based small animal teaching hospital. Procedures-Journals were hand searched to identify eligible reports. Details concerning trial methodology were recorded. Veterinarians provided information regarding position, experience, and personal interpretation of blinding terminology via an anonymous questionnaire. Results-Blinding was reported or inferred in 131 reports of RCTs, yet complete descriptions of who was blinded were present in only 42 (32.1%) reports. Studies for which blinding was reported with the terms single or double blinded were less likely to contain clear descriptions of the role of blinded study personnel, compared with studies reported as blinded or in which blinding was inferred through trial methodology. Veterinarians did not agree on how to interpret the terms single, double, and triple blinded when reading the report of an RCT. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Blinding was commonly used as a means of reducing bias associated with collection and interpretation of data in reports of veterinary RCTs. However, most reports of blinding methodology were incomplete and there was no consistency in how blinding terminology was used by authors or interpreted by veterinarians. Ambiguous reporting hinders the ability of practitioners to assess the validity of trial results and make informed decisions about applying study findings to their patient populations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1221-1226
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Volume241
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Veterinarians
terminology
Terminology
veterinarians
Cats
Randomized Controlled Trials
Dogs
cats
dogs
randomized clinical trials
Animal Hospitals
peers
Reproducibility of Results
Teaching Hospitals
human resources
Reading
questionnaires
methodology
Population
animals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Blinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and cats. / Giuffrida, Michelle; Agnello, Kimberley A.; Brown, Dorothy C.

In: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 241, No. 9, 01.11.2012, p. 1221-1226.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{97187605e47249d0a880d923c0e86f2d,
title = "Blinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and cats",
abstract = "Objective-To review blinding terminology used in published reports of veterinary clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine how practicing veterinarians interpret blinding terminology. Design-Retrospective literature review and prospective veterinarian survey. Sample-195 parallel-group clinical RCTs published from June 2004 to June 2010 in 11 peer-reviewed journals; 21 practicing veterinarians at a university-based small animal teaching hospital. Procedures-Journals were hand searched to identify eligible reports. Details concerning trial methodology were recorded. Veterinarians provided information regarding position, experience, and personal interpretation of blinding terminology via an anonymous questionnaire. Results-Blinding was reported or inferred in 131 reports of RCTs, yet complete descriptions of who was blinded were present in only 42 (32.1{\%}) reports. Studies for which blinding was reported with the terms single or double blinded were less likely to contain clear descriptions of the role of blinded study personnel, compared with studies reported as blinded or in which blinding was inferred through trial methodology. Veterinarians did not agree on how to interpret the terms single, double, and triple blinded when reading the report of an RCT. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Blinding was commonly used as a means of reducing bias associated with collection and interpretation of data in reports of veterinary RCTs. However, most reports of blinding methodology were incomplete and there was no consistency in how blinding terminology was used by authors or interpreted by veterinarians. Ambiguous reporting hinders the ability of practitioners to assess the validity of trial results and make informed decisions about applying study findings to their patient populations.",
author = "Michelle Giuffrida and Agnello, {Kimberley A.} and Brown, {Dorothy C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2460/javma.241.9.1221",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "241",
pages = "1221--1226",
journal = "Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association",
issn = "0003-1488",
publisher = "American Veterinary Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Blinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and cats

AU - Giuffrida, Michelle

AU - Agnello, Kimberley A.

AU - Brown, Dorothy C.

PY - 2012/11/1

Y1 - 2012/11/1

N2 - Objective-To review blinding terminology used in published reports of veterinary clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine how practicing veterinarians interpret blinding terminology. Design-Retrospective literature review and prospective veterinarian survey. Sample-195 parallel-group clinical RCTs published from June 2004 to June 2010 in 11 peer-reviewed journals; 21 practicing veterinarians at a university-based small animal teaching hospital. Procedures-Journals were hand searched to identify eligible reports. Details concerning trial methodology were recorded. Veterinarians provided information regarding position, experience, and personal interpretation of blinding terminology via an anonymous questionnaire. Results-Blinding was reported or inferred in 131 reports of RCTs, yet complete descriptions of who was blinded were present in only 42 (32.1%) reports. Studies for which blinding was reported with the terms single or double blinded were less likely to contain clear descriptions of the role of blinded study personnel, compared with studies reported as blinded or in which blinding was inferred through trial methodology. Veterinarians did not agree on how to interpret the terms single, double, and triple blinded when reading the report of an RCT. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Blinding was commonly used as a means of reducing bias associated with collection and interpretation of data in reports of veterinary RCTs. However, most reports of blinding methodology were incomplete and there was no consistency in how blinding terminology was used by authors or interpreted by veterinarians. Ambiguous reporting hinders the ability of practitioners to assess the validity of trial results and make informed decisions about applying study findings to their patient populations.

AB - Objective-To review blinding terminology used in published reports of veterinary clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine how practicing veterinarians interpret blinding terminology. Design-Retrospective literature review and prospective veterinarian survey. Sample-195 parallel-group clinical RCTs published from June 2004 to June 2010 in 11 peer-reviewed journals; 21 practicing veterinarians at a university-based small animal teaching hospital. Procedures-Journals were hand searched to identify eligible reports. Details concerning trial methodology were recorded. Veterinarians provided information regarding position, experience, and personal interpretation of blinding terminology via an anonymous questionnaire. Results-Blinding was reported or inferred in 131 reports of RCTs, yet complete descriptions of who was blinded were present in only 42 (32.1%) reports. Studies for which blinding was reported with the terms single or double blinded were less likely to contain clear descriptions of the role of blinded study personnel, compared with studies reported as blinded or in which blinding was inferred through trial methodology. Veterinarians did not agree on how to interpret the terms single, double, and triple blinded when reading the report of an RCT. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Blinding was commonly used as a means of reducing bias associated with collection and interpretation of data in reports of veterinary RCTs. However, most reports of blinding methodology were incomplete and there was no consistency in how blinding terminology was used by authors or interpreted by veterinarians. Ambiguous reporting hinders the ability of practitioners to assess the validity of trial results and make informed decisions about applying study findings to their patient populations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867912727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867912727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2460/javma.241.9.1221

DO - 10.2460/javma.241.9.1221

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23078571

AN - SCOPUS:84867912727

VL - 241

SP - 1221

EP - 1226

JO - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

JF - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

SN - 0003-1488

IS - 9

ER -