The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized Trials

Medical Writings5 February 2002The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized TrialsKenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA, Iain Chalmers, DSc, and Douglas G. Altman, DScKenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBADr. Schulz: Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Dr. Chalmers: United Kingdom Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom OX2 7LGProfessor Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom OX3 7LF, Iain Chalmers, DScDr. Schulz: Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Dr. Chalmers: United Kingdom Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom OX2 7LGProfessor Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom OX3 7LF, and Douglas G. Altman, DScDr. Schulz: Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Dr. Chalmers: United Kingdom Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom OX2 7LGProfessor Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom OX3 7LFAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00022 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Blinding in medical research possesses a rich history spanning a couple of centuries (1). Most researchers and readers grasp its meaning. Unfortunately, beyond that general understanding lies confusion. In addition to terms such as "single blind" and "double blind" meaning different things to different people, some steadfastly refuse to use the term "blinding" and insist instead on the term "masking." Others confuse blinding with other methodologic precautions, such as concealment of allocation during the process of creating comparison groups. Still others consider that randomization is of little use unless accompanied by "double-blinding," thus revealing that they have not understood that ...References1. Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bull Hist Med. 1998;72:389-433. PMID: 9780448 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Lang T. Masking or blinding? An unscientific survey of mostly medical journal editors on the great debate. MedGenMed. 2000:E25. PMID: 0011104471 Google Scholar3. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1983. Google Scholar4. Meinert CL, Tonascia S. Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct, and Analysis. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1986. Google Scholar5. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996. Google Scholar6. Meinert CL. Clinical Trials Dictionary. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Clinical Trials; 1996. Google Scholar7. Day S. Dictionary for Clinical Trials. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1999. Google Scholar8. International Epidemiological Association. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Last JM, ed. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr; 2001. Google Scholar9. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Lacchetti C, Montori VM, et al . Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized, controlled trials. JAMA. 2001;285:2000-3. PMID: 11308438 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Franklin B, Bailly JS, Lavoisier AL. Rapport des Commissaires chargés par le roi, de l'examen du magnetisme animal. A Nice: Chez Gabriel Floteron; 1785. Google Scholar11. Dean ME. A homeopathic origin for placebo controls: 'an invaluable gift of God'. Altern Ther Health Med. 2000;6:58-66. PMID: 10710804 MedlineGoogle Scholar12. Day SJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: blinding in clinical trials and other studies. BMJ. 2000;321:504. PMID: 10948038 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Chalmers I. What is the prior probability of a proposed new treatment being superior to established treatments? Letter. BMJ. 1997;314:74-5. PMID: 9001503 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Wolf S. Effects of suggestion and conditioning on action of chemical agents in human subjects—pharmacology of placebos. J Clin Invest. 1950;29:100-9. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1594-602. PMID: 11372012 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Lintula H, Kokki H, Vanamo K. Single-blind randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy in children. Br J Surg. 2001;88:510-4. PMID: 11298617 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991. Google Scholar18. Mosteller F, Gilbert JP, McPeek B. Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials: agenda for the editor. Controll Clin Trials. 1980;1:37-58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar19. Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:31-56. PMID: 2702836 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1332-7. PMID: 7070458 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes RJ. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ. 1996;312:742-4. PMID: 8605459 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22. . International conference on harmonisation; guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials; availability—FDA. Notice. Fed Regist. 1998;63:49583-98. PMID: 10185190 MedlineGoogle Scholar23. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al . The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94. PMID: 11304107 LinkGoogle Scholar24. Schulz 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. PMID: 7823387 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272:125-8. PMID: 8015122 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;274:1456-8. PMID: 7474192 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Altman DG, Doré CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet. 1990;335:149-53. PMID: 1967441 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. Adetugbo K, Williams H. How well are randomized, controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:381-5. PMID: 10724201 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29. Moher 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;352:609-13. PMID: 9746022 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar30. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358-61. PMID: 6633598 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al . Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12. PMID: 8721797 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar32. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-6. PMID: 11440947 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-62. PMID: 11304106 LinkGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA; Iain Chalmers, DSc; Douglas G. Altman, DScAffiliations: Dr. Schulz: Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Dr. Chalmers: United Kingdom Cochrane Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom OX2 7LGProfessor Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom OX3 7LFAcknowledgment: The authors thank Dr. Ted J. Kaptchuk for his review of earlier drafts of this manuscript.Corresponding Author: Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA, Family Health International, Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Schulz: Family Health International, Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.Dr. Chalmers: UK Cochrane Centre, NHS Research and Development Programme, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford, United Kingdom OX2 7LG.Professor Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom OX3 7LF. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byGood Scientific Practice and Ethics in Sports and Exercise Science: A Brief and Comprehensive Hands-on Appraisal for Sports ResearchRisk of bias and reporting practices in studies comparing VO2max responses to sprint interval vs. continuous training: A systematic review and meta-analysisRisk of bias assessments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of behavioral interventions for substance use outcomesi-CONTENT tool for assessing therapeutic quality of exercise programs employed in randomised clinical trialsMolecular regulation of skeletal muscle mitochondrial biogenesis following blood flow-restricted aerobic exercise: a call to actionBlinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big PictureDoes Knowledge of Treatment Assignment Affect Patient Report of Symptoms, Function, and Health Status? An Evaluation Using Multiple Myeloma TrialsBlinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a retrospective study of published trial reportsAssessment of the Risk of BiasUnmeasured confounding with and without randomizationPerspective: Design and Conduct of Human Nutrition Randomized Controlled TrialsEssential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatmentsBlinding Assessment: One Step ForwardHow to read a published clinical trial: a practical guide for cliniciansResearch Note: Blinding: what, why, when and how?Common design concepts in randomized controlled trialsAssessing risk of bias in a randomized trialSubjective Versus Objective Outcomes of Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms Associated with DementiaRisk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequateHow to maintain the maximal level of blinding in randomisation for a placebo-controlled drug trialImproving Methodological Standards in Behavioral Interventions for Cognitive EnhancementTheory-Based Health Behavior Interventions for Pediatric Chronic Disease Management'Allocation concealment': the evolution and adoption of a methodological termSpinal Cord InjuryPeripheral NeuropathyMeningitisInvestigating the effect of independent, blinded digital image assessment on the STOP GAP trialAntipsychotic combinations in schizophreniaClinical trials in dermatologyThe Effectiveness of EMLA as a Primary Dressing on Painful Chronic Leg Ulcers: A Pilot Randomized Controlled TrialExperience With a Subretinal Cell-based Therapy in Patients With Geographic Atrophy Secondary to Age-related Macular DegenerationThe effect of blinding on estimates of mortality in randomised clinical trials of intensive care interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysisThe quality of placebos used in randomized, controlled trials of lumbar and pelvic joint thrust manipulation—a systematic reviewEffectiveness and Tolerability of Different Recommended Doses of PPIs and H2RAs in GERD: Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE systemThe effects of honey compared to silver sulfadiazine for the treatment of burns: A systematic review of randomized controlled trialsUnreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in 4 of 10 randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in 1 of 10 trialsAssessment Fidelity in Aphasia ResearchThe matching quality of experimental and control interventions in blinded pharmacological randomised clinical trials: a methodological systematic reviewImplementation of blinded outcome assessment in the Effective Verruca Treatments trial (EverT) – lessons learnedElectroacupuncture to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trialAnkle Injury Prevention Programs for Soccer Athletes Are ProtectivePredictors of Outcome in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Switched from Ranibizumab to 8-Weekly AfliberceptTwo Independent Prospectively Planned Blinded Weibull Statistical Analyses of Flexural Strength Data of Zirconia MaterialsOn the limitations of permuted blocked randomizationFeasibility of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm: a systematic reviewFrom Trials to TrialsComparative efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: A network meta-analysis with the adjustment for the possible bias from open label studiesReporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journalsAnterior Cruciate Ligament and Knee Injury Prevention Programs for Soccer PlayersBlinding in pharmaceutical clinical trials: An overview of points to considerSelf-help interventions for psychosis: A meta-analysisThe CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trialsDisagreement between Therapist Raters and Independent Evaluators in a Controlled Clinical Trial of Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depressed Pregnant WomenExercise training for health-related quality of life in peripheral artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysisRandomization, Allocation Concealment, and BlindingThe face of equipoise - delivering a structured education programme within a randomized controlled trial: qualitative studyAcupuncture for functional dyspepsia: study protocol for a two-center, randomized controlled trialThe risk of unblinding was infrequently and incompletely reported in 300 randomized clinical trial publicationsAllocation ConcealmentMaskingDouble‐DummyEffect of hospital-based telephone coaching on glycaemic control and adherence to management guidelines in type 2 diabetes, a randomised controlled trialFortgeschrittenes Pankreaskarzinom – MisteltherapieEffects of Whole-body Vibration with Stochastic Resonance on Balance in Persons with Balance Disability and Falls History – A Systematic ReviewPositive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during anaesthesia for prevention of mortality and postoperative pulmonary complicationsOutcome MeasuresObserver bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe?Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilizationComplementary and alternative medical interventions for the management of anxiety in parents of children who are hospitalized and suffer from a malignancy: A systematic review of RCTsHow to Read a Randomized Controlled Clinical TrialSubject expectancy effect or the effect of chiropractic manipulative therapy?The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane CollaborationA meta-analysis of the sub-vastus approach and medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplastyEfficacy of low frequency pulsed subsensory threshold electrical stimulation vs placebo on pain and physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: systematic review with meta-analysisBlinding and the Non-interference Assumption in Medical and Social TrialsNeuraxial anaesthesia for lower-limb revascularizationBlinding: an essential component in decreasing risk of bias in experimental designsEfficacy and Degree of Bias in Knee Injury Prevention Studies: A Systematic Review of RCTsControl Group Design: Enhancing Rigor in Research of Mind-Body Therapies for DepressionAntibiotics to reduce post-tonsillectomy morbidityA research participant's rights as an ethical dilemmaAssessment of blinding to treatment allocation in studies of a cannabis-based medicine (Sativex®) in people with multiple sclerosis: a new approachBlinding terminology used in reports of randomized controlled trials involving dogs and catsStandard 2: Containing Risk of BiasCONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsRisk of Bias Tool in Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture in Chinese JournalsTriphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraceptionReamed intramedullary nailing versus unreamed intramedullary nailing for shaft fracture of femur: a systematic literature reviewClinician-trialist rounds: 6. Testing for blindness at the end of your trial is a mug's gameDose-specific Effects of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on Experimental PainInterventions for preventing hamstring injuries: a systematic reviewReferencesThe blind leading the blind: Use and misuse of blinding in randomized controlled trialsDo Unblinded Assessors Bias Muscle Strength Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Progressive Resistance Strength Training in Older Adults?Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trialA qualidade dos ensaios clínicos randomizados publicados no Jornal Vascular BrasileiroNew Insights on Therapeutic Touch: A Discussion of Experimental Methodology and Design That Resulted in Significant Effects on Normal Human Cells and OsteosarcomaDeliberate IgnoranceEnsayo clinico para la enfermeria basada en evidencia: un desafio alcanzable"Evidence" in chronic pain – establishing best practice in the reporting of systematic reviewsDomestic use of a disclosing solution for denture hygiene: a randomised trialCONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsAntibiotics to reduce post-tonsillectomy morbidityEvaluating Evidence and Grading Recommendations: The SIS/IDSA Guidelines for the Treatment of Complicated Intra-Abdominal InfectionsCONSORT 2010 changes and testing blindness in RCTsInterventions for preventing hamstring injuriesNeuraxial anaesthesia for lower-limb revascularizationChallenges and recommendations for blinding in behavioral interventions illustrated using a case study of a behavioral intervention to lower blood pressureTowards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up-to-date reviewThe challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trialsReporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictoryAntiplatelet therapy in ischemic stroke: Variability in clinical trials and its impact on choosing the appropriate therapyImpact of childhood exposure to a natural disaster on adult mental health: 20-year longitudinal follow-up studyEffects of the domestic use of a disclosing solution on the denture biofilm: a preliminary studySystematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Infectious Diseases: How are They Done and What are Their Strengths and Limitations?Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trialsAssessing the Quality of Random Clinical Anesthesiology Trials Published on the Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology from 2005 to 2008Cochrane Review: Antibiotics to reduce post-tonsillectomy morbidityIs It Possible to Blind a Trial for Community‐Acquired Pneumonia?Commentary on the Cochrane Review of Chinese Herbal Medicine for DysmenorrheaA Primer on Selected Aspects of Evidence-Based Practice Relating to Questions of Treatment, Part 1: Asking Questions, Finding Evidence, and Determining ValidityImperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literatureMaskingRandomised controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology: Overview of parameters and pitfallsAntibiotics to reduce post-tonsillectomy morbidityExtending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and ElaborationIsabelle Boutron, MD, PhD, David Moher, PhD, Douglas G. Altman, DSc, Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA, and Philippe Ravaud, MD, PhD, for the CONSORT Group*Blinding Techniques in Randomized Controlled Trials of Laser Therapy: An Overview and Possible SolutionAllocation ConcealmentDouble-DummyReihe Epidemiologie 8: Verblindung in randomisierten Studien: Wie man verdeckt, wer was erhalten hatStructuring communication relationships for interprofessional teamwork (SCRIPT): a cluster randomized controlled trialReihe Epidemiologie 7: Geheimhaltung der Randomisierungslisten in randomisierten Studien: Wie man sich gegen Entschlüsselung wappnetImpact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trialsTechnology Assessment in Radiology: Putting the Evidence in Evidence-based RadiologyVasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilizationReporting of Outcomes in Orthopaedic Randomized TrialsReporting of Outcomes in Orthopaedic Randomized TrialsEffects of Splinting on Wrist Contracture After StrokeAGA Institute Technical Review on the Use of Endoscopic Therapy for Gastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseRater bias in a blinded randomized placebo-controlled psychiatry trialTriphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraceptionEnsayos clínicos aleatorizados: definición y análisis críticoEfficacy of periprostatic local anesthetic for prostate biopsy analgesia: A meta-analysisPrimer on Research: Bias and Blinding: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies and Intentional IgnoranceIntrauterine Insemination versus Timed Intercourse for Cervical in for in Patients A Randomized Controlled versus or management for in concealment and when is in research: A randomized clinical trial to blinding with Control in Trials of A Review of Methodological in unblinding in randomized controlled trials: a to CONSORT Review of the Methodological Quality of Trials in the for vs. in the a meta-analysis of trials using the to treat concealment and when is occlusion techniques for male was to and maintain in and Design for Randomized Clinical Trials or Treatments for reporting of methods for and an from the of randomised controlled pain: a randomized controlled trial in study quality in of multiple a systematic review and of published Cochrane and and concealment in randomised trials: in randomised trials: who Control – A at Blinding and February care February February by of