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 Oct 18;6(10):e011099.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011099.

Effect of characteristics of women on attendance in blind and non-blind randomised trials: analysis of recruitment data from the EPHT Trial

Piret Veerus  1 , Krista Fischer  2 , Elina Hemminki  3 , Sirpa-Liisa Hovi  3 , Matti Hakama  4
Affiliations

Effect of characteristics of women on attendance in blind and non-blind randomised trials: analysis of recruitment data from the EPHT Trial

Piret Veerus et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse the effect of women's characteristics on their willingness to join a blind or a non-blind subtrial or to be excluded by physicians.

Design: Primary prevention trial of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT). A 2×2, randomised design with a non-blind HT arm or control arm and a blind HT arm or placebo arm.

Setting: 3 clinical centres in Estonia.

Methods: Interest in joining the trial was asked in a questionnaire together with demographic and health status data. Interested and eligible women were invited to a health examination that also informed whether they belonged to a blind or to a non-blind subtrial; the arm was not revealed. Trial physicians made further exclusions when checking the women's eligibility. Thereafter, informed consent was asked as detailed in the flow chart. Comparisons were made between non-blind and blind subtrials. Analyses were carried out for each of the background variables.

Outcome measures: The proportion of willingness, eligibility and attendance.

Results: Women randomised to the non-blind subtrial were more willing to join (relative risk (RR) 1.17) and more likely to be found eligible by physicians (RR 1.10) than women in the blind subtrial, resulting in larger attendance (RR 1.29). Women with higher education were differentially more willing to join the non-blind trial (RR 1.29) than those with basic education (RR 1.08); the differential willingness of never-smokers (RR 1.20) was larger than that of current smokers (RR 1.07). The differential exclusion by physicians by education and smoking were small. Some subjective symptoms (eg, diarrhoea/constipation, stomach pain) had reverse differential effects on attendance in the non-blind subtrial in comparison to the blind subtrial. Menopausal symptoms did not affect the differential interest, eligibility or attendance.

Conclusions: Blinding in RCT reduces attendance, due to decisions of the women and the trial physicians. Differential attendance by blinding may affect the generalisability of the results from trials.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN35338757.

Keywords: BLINDING; SELECTION BIAS; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS; TRIALS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart on randomisation in the EPHT Trial. EPHT, Estonian Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy; HT, hormone therapy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL et al. . Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601–5. 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feys F, Bekkering GE, Singh K et al. . Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups? Syst Rev 2014;3:14 10.1186/2046-4053-3-14 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ et al. . Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–12. 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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 non-blind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1272–83. 10.1093/ije/dyu115 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2):MR000012 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub2 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources