Purpose: It is uncertain whether, in critical care medicine, non-blinded trials are associated with a bias toward a different effect size. The aim of our study was to assess if conducting non-blinded/open label studies leads to greater effect size than blinded studies, and to provide an estimate of the weight of this difference. Materials and methods: We systematically searched all papers published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and December 2015, dealing with non surgical interventions in critically ill adults and reporting a statistically significant difference in mortality. We assessed the number needed to treat (NNT) of each trial to estimate the treatment effect size and we divided studies into non-blinded, single-blinded and double-blinded. We searched for correlation between the treatment effect size and blinding, and adjusted for the other trial variables. Results: We identified 119 critically ill randomized controlled trials. Of these, 69 studies were non-blinded and 50 were blinded. The median NNT in non-blinded studies was 5 [IQR 4–7] while it was 7 [IQR 5–7] in the blinded studies (p <.001). Conclusions: The NNT for blinded studies is 40% higher than for unblinded studies. This should be taken into account when planning and interpreting the findings of non-blinded studies performed in critically ill settings.

The impact of non-blinding in critical care medicine trials / Baiardo Redaelli, M; Belletti, A; Monti, G; Lembo, R; Ortalda, A; Landoni, G; Bellomo, R. - In: JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE. - ISSN 0883-9441. - 48:(2018), pp. 414-417. [10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.09.031]

The impact of non-blinding in critical care medicine trials

Belletti, A;Monti, G;Ortalda, A;Landoni, G;
2018-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: It is uncertain whether, in critical care medicine, non-blinded trials are associated with a bias toward a different effect size. The aim of our study was to assess if conducting non-blinded/open label studies leads to greater effect size than blinded studies, and to provide an estimate of the weight of this difference. Materials and methods: We systematically searched all papers published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and December 2015, dealing with non surgical interventions in critically ill adults and reporting a statistically significant difference in mortality. We assessed the number needed to treat (NNT) of each trial to estimate the treatment effect size and we divided studies into non-blinded, single-blinded and double-blinded. We searched for correlation between the treatment effect size and blinding, and adjusted for the other trial variables. Results: We identified 119 critically ill randomized controlled trials. Of these, 69 studies were non-blinded and 50 were blinded. The median NNT in non-blinded studies was 5 [IQR 4–7] while it was 7 [IQR 5–7] in the blinded studies (p <.001). Conclusions: The NNT for blinded studies is 40% higher than for unblinded studies. This should be taken into account when planning and interpreting the findings of non-blinded studies performed in critically ill settings.
2018
Anesthesia; Blind; Critical care; Intensive care; Mortality; Research methodology; Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/83493
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact