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
. 2023 Jan 31;24(1):71.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06992-5.

Developing guidance for a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials: a mixed methods study

Affiliations

Developing guidance for a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials: a mixed methods study

Mais Iflaifel et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials.

Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs.

Results: After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies.

Conclusions: This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial.

Keywords: Blinding; Clinical trials; Clinical trials unit; Mixed methods; Stakeholder meeting; Statisticians.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Developing the guidance document for blinding TSs in clinical trials
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Summary of the stakeholder group meeting
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Study flow diagram
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Headers and sections of the BOTS Risk Assessment Tool

References

    1. DeMets D. The independent statistician model: how well is it working? Clinical Trials. 2018;15(4):329–334. doi: 10.1177/1740774518772841. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ellenberg SS, George SL. Should statisticians reporting to data monitoring committees be independent of the trial sponsor and leadership? Stat Med. 2004;23(10):1503–1505. doi: 10.1002/sim.1784. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials 2022 [Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-proposals-fo....
    1. Iflaifel M, Partlett C, Bell J, Cook A, Gamble C, Julious S, et al. Blinding of study statisticians in clinical trials: a qualitative study in UK clinical trials units. Trials. 2022;23(1):535. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06481-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Edmonds W, Kennedy T, Convergent-parallel approach. An applied guide to research designs: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. 2. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2017.

LinkOut - more resources