Random guess and wishful thinking are the best blinding scenarios

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Blinding is a methodologic safeguard of treatment evaluation, yet severely understudied empirically. Mathieu et al.'s theoretical analysis (2014) provided an important message that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with belief about allocation in randomized controlled trial; just like the intent-to-treat principle does not guarantee unbiased estimation under noncompliance, the blinded randomized trial as a golden standard may produce bias. They showed possible biases but did not assess how large the bias could be in different scenarios. In this paper, we examined their findings, and numerically assessed and compared the bias in treatment effect parameters by simulation under frequently encountered blinding scenarios, aiming to identify the most ideal blinding scenarios in practice. We conclude that Random Guess and Wishful Thinking (e.g., participants tend to believe they received treatment) are the most ideal blinding scenarios, incurring minimal bias. We also find some evidence that imperfect or partial blinding can be better than no blinding.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)117-121
Number of pages5
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Volume3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 15 2016

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Blinding
  • Blinding index
  • Clinical trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Random guess and wishful thinking are the best blinding scenarios. / Bang, Heejung.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, Vol. 3, 15.08.2016, p. 117-121.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5bbe7f9f9bb94694b9d1190674413a56,
title = "Random guess and wishful thinking are the best blinding scenarios",
abstract = "Blinding is a methodologic safeguard of treatment evaluation, yet severely understudied empirically. Mathieu et al.'s theoretical analysis (2014) provided an important message that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with belief about allocation in randomized controlled trial; just like the intent-to-treat principle does not guarantee unbiased estimation under noncompliance, the blinded randomized trial as a golden standard may produce bias. They showed possible biases but did not assess how large the bias could be in different scenarios. In this paper, we examined their findings, and numerically assessed and compared the bias in treatment effect parameters by simulation under frequently encountered blinding scenarios, aiming to identify the most ideal blinding scenarios in practice. We conclude that Random Guess and Wishful Thinking (e.g., participants tend to believe they received treatment) are the most ideal blinding scenarios, incurring minimal bias. We also find some evidence that imperfect or partial blinding can be better than no blinding.",
keywords = "Bias, Blinding, Blinding index, Clinical trial",
author = "Heejung Bang",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.conctc.2016.05.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "117--121",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications",
issn = "2451-8654",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Random guess and wishful thinking are the best blinding scenarios

AU - Bang, Heejung

PY - 2016/8/15

Y1 - 2016/8/15

N2 - Blinding is a methodologic safeguard of treatment evaluation, yet severely understudied empirically. Mathieu et al.'s theoretical analysis (2014) provided an important message that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with belief about allocation in randomized controlled trial; just like the intent-to-treat principle does not guarantee unbiased estimation under noncompliance, the blinded randomized trial as a golden standard may produce bias. They showed possible biases but did not assess how large the bias could be in different scenarios. In this paper, we examined their findings, and numerically assessed and compared the bias in treatment effect parameters by simulation under frequently encountered blinding scenarios, aiming to identify the most ideal blinding scenarios in practice. We conclude that Random Guess and Wishful Thinking (e.g., participants tend to believe they received treatment) are the most ideal blinding scenarios, incurring minimal bias. We also find some evidence that imperfect or partial blinding can be better than no blinding.

AB - Blinding is a methodologic safeguard of treatment evaluation, yet severely understudied empirically. Mathieu et al.'s theoretical analysis (2014) provided an important message that blinding cannot eliminate potential for bias associated with belief about allocation in randomized controlled trial; just like the intent-to-treat principle does not guarantee unbiased estimation under noncompliance, the blinded randomized trial as a golden standard may produce bias. They showed possible biases but did not assess how large the bias could be in different scenarios. In this paper, we examined their findings, and numerically assessed and compared the bias in treatment effect parameters by simulation under frequently encountered blinding scenarios, aiming to identify the most ideal blinding scenarios in practice. We conclude that Random Guess and Wishful Thinking (e.g., participants tend to believe they received treatment) are the most ideal blinding scenarios, incurring minimal bias. We also find some evidence that imperfect or partial blinding can be better than no blinding.

KW - Bias

KW - Blinding

KW - Blinding index

KW - Clinical trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84968918920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84968918920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.05.003

DO - 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.05.003

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84968918920

VL - 3

SP - 117

EP - 121

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

SN - 2451-8654

ER -