Blinded or Nonblinded Randomized Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation Research: A Conceptual Analysis Based on a Systematic Review.
Journal
American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation
ISSN: 1537-7385
Titre abrégé: Am J Phys Med Rehabil
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8803677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
6
5
2020
entrez:
25
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Some recent studies suggest that double blinding should not be considered a validity criterion in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on real-life circumstances. This study aims to assess whether blinding vs. nonblinding have been analyzed conceptually in the rehabilitation literature. Propositions on the role of blinding in RCTs on rehabilitation are presented based on the conceptual analysis. Study questions, literature search strategy, and inclusion and exclusion criteria for the original studies were formulated. A health science librarian carried out the literature search. Eligibility was assessed and data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The literature search identified a total of 1052 citations, of which 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the included studies answered our research questions, and thus we were unable to extract any relevant data. The ideas on blinding vs. nonblinding in RCTs have not been considered in the rehabilitation research literature. This conceptual systematic review proposes that a physical therapy modality is a single core element, and when the study question is on effectiveness of this single core element itself, double blinding in an RCT is indicated. In all other RCTs in rehabilitation, double blinding is not indicated and double blinding should not be considered a criterion for the assessment of risk of bias.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31977325
doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001369
pii: 00002060-202003000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
183-190Références
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al., PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264–9, W64
Armijo-Olivo S, Fuentes J, da Costa BR, et al.: Blinding in physical therapy trials and its association with treatment effects: A meta-epidemiological study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017;96:34–44
Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, et al., CONSORT NPT Group: CONSORT statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: A 2017 update and a CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic trial abstracts. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:40–7
Malmivaara A: Validity and generalizability of findings of randomized controlled trials on arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2018;28:1970–81
Malmivaara A: Pure intervention effect or effect in routine health care—Blinded or non-blinded randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:91
Puhl AA, Reinhart CJ, Doan JB, et al.: The quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation-a systematic review. Spine J 2017;17:445–56
Nüesch E, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, et al.: The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: A meta-epidemiologic study. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1633–41
Moroz A, Freed B, Tiedemann L, et al.: Blinding measured: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013;2013:708251
Minns Lowe CJ, Wilson MS, Sackley CM, et al.: Blind outcome assessment: The development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial. Clin Rehabil 2011;25:264–74
Losina E, Ranstam J, Collins JE, et al.: OARSI clinical trials recommendations: Key analytic considerations in design, analysis, and reporting of randomized controlled trials in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2015;23:677–85
Liu CJ, LaValley M, Latham NK: Do unblinded assessors bias muscle strength outcomes in randomized controlled trials of progressive resistance strength training in older adults? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2011;90:190–6
Kamper SJ: Blinding: Linking evidence to practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48:825–6
Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, et al.: Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1272–83
Hopton AK, Macpherson H: Assessing blinding in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture: Challenges and recommendations. Chin J Integr Med 2011;17:173–6
Bishop FL, Jacobson EE, Shaw J, et al.: Participants’ experiences of being debriefed to placebo allocation in a clinical trial. Qual Health Res 2012;22:1138–49
Villamar MF, Contreras VS, Kuntz RE, et al.: The reporting of blinding in physical medicine and rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: A systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2013;45:6–13
Solari A: Methodological aspects of randomized controlled trials on cognitive interventions. Neurol Sci 2010;31(suppl 2):S279–82
Malmivaara A: Assessing the effectiveness of rehabilitation and optimizing effectiveness in routine clinical work. J Rehabil Med 2018;50:849–51
Negrini S, Arienti C, Pollet J, et al.: Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;114:108–17
Malmivaara A: Generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials is limited in the leading general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;107:36–41