Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb 13:16:18.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0111-9.

The matching quality of experimental and control interventions in blinded pharmacological randomised clinical trials: a methodological systematic review

Affiliations

The matching quality of experimental and control interventions in blinded pharmacological randomised clinical trials: a methodological systematic review

Segun Bello et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Blinding is a pivotal method to avoid bias in randomised clinical trials. In blinded drug trials, experimental and control interventions are often designed to be matched, i.e. to appear indistinguishable. It is unknown how often matching procedures are inadequate, so we decided to systematically identify and analyse studies of matching quality in drug trials. Our primary objective was to assess the proportion of studies that concluded that the matching was inadequate; our secondary objective was to describe mechanisms for inadequate matching.

Methods: Systematic review. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science Citation Index for studies that assessed whether supposedly indistinguishable interventions (experimental and control) in randomized clinical drug trials could be distinguished based on physical properties (e.g. appearance or smell). Two persons decided on study eligibility and extracted data independently. Our primary analysis was based on the conclusions of each study. In supportive analyses, we defined a low and a high threshold for inadequate matching. We summarised results qualitatively.

Results: We included studies of 36 trials, of which 28 (78%) were published before 1977. The studies differed considerably with regard to design, methodology and analysis. Sixteen of the 36 studies (44%) concluded inadequate matching. When we adapted high or low thresholds for inadequate matching, the number of trials with inadequate matching was reduced to 12 (33%) or increased to 26 (72%). Inadequate matching was concluded in 7 of 22 trials (32%) based on a defined cohort of trials. Inadequate matching was concluded in 9 of 14 trials (64%) which were not based on a trial cohort, and therefore at a higher risk of publication bias. The proportion of inadequate matching did not seem to depend on publication year. Typical mechanisms of inadequate matching were differences in taste or colour.

Conclusion: We identified matching quality studies of 36 randomized clinical drug trials. Sixteen of the 36 studies (44%) concluded inadequate matching. Few studies of matching quality in contemporary trials have been published, but show similar results as found for older trials. Inadequate matching in drug trials may be more prevalent than commonly believed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow of database search for identifying eligible studies

References

    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomised trials. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:254–259. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I. Blinding in randomized clinical trials: imposed impartiality. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(5):732–736. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2011.207. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(6):429–438. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ. 2012;344 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1119. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen ASS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources