Cargando…

Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial

BACKGROUND: It is challenging for outcome assessors to remain blinded during outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. If assessors are able to guess the correct treatment allocation more often than expected based on chance, the assessors may have...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Ende, Nadinda AM, Roozenbeek, Bob, Broderick, Joseph P, Khatri, Pooja, Lingsma, Hester F, Dippel, Diederik WJ
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10196921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36169032
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17474930221131706
_version_ 1785044448813514752
author van der Ende, Nadinda AM
Roozenbeek, Bob
Broderick, Joseph P
Khatri, Pooja
Lingsma, Hester F
Dippel, Diederik WJ
author_facet van der Ende, Nadinda AM
Roozenbeek, Bob
Broderick, Joseph P
Khatri, Pooja
Lingsma, Hester F
Dippel, Diederik WJ
author_sort van der Ende, Nadinda AM
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It is challenging for outcome assessors to remain blinded during outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. If assessors are able to guess the correct treatment allocation more often than expected based on chance, the assessors may have been not properly blinded. AIMS: We aimed to assess blinding of outcome assessors in a stroke trial with PROBE design and its association with outcome. METHODS: We used data of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days was assessed by local assessors who were unaware of treatment allocation. To assess success of blinding, each assessor was asked to guess the patient’s treatment allocation. We assessed whether the percentage of correct guesses was higher than chance (i.e. 50%). The association between correctly guessed treatment allocation and the mRS at 90 days was analyzed with ordinal logistic regression stratified by treatment allocation. We tested for interaction of correctly versus incorrectly guessed treatment allocation with actual treatment allocation on the mRS. Patients with missing data on guessed treatment allocation and patients who died prior to 90-day assessment were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 459 patients were included in this study. The assessors guessed the correct treatment allocation significantly more often than expected (267/459, 58.2%, one-sided p = 0.0003). Correctly guessed treatment allocations were associated with better mRS scores in the intervention group (common odds ratio (cOR): 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50–3.48) and with worse mRS scores in the control group (cOR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27–0.83) (p(interaction) < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Assessors may not always be truly blinded for treatment allocation in clinical trials, and their guesses may be associated with outcome. Although causality between the assessors’ guess and patient outcome cannot be determined, future trials with subjective outcome should make efforts to ensure blinding and should report their blinding method and the success of blinding like the IMS III trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00359424.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10196921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101969212023-05-20 Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial van der Ende, Nadinda AM Roozenbeek, Bob Broderick, Joseph P Khatri, Pooja Lingsma, Hester F Dippel, Diederik WJ Int J Stroke Research BACKGROUND: It is challenging for outcome assessors to remain blinded during outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. If assessors are able to guess the correct treatment allocation more often than expected based on chance, the assessors may have been not properly blinded. AIMS: We aimed to assess blinding of outcome assessors in a stroke trial with PROBE design and its association with outcome. METHODS: We used data of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days was assessed by local assessors who were unaware of treatment allocation. To assess success of blinding, each assessor was asked to guess the patient’s treatment allocation. We assessed whether the percentage of correct guesses was higher than chance (i.e. 50%). The association between correctly guessed treatment allocation and the mRS at 90 days was analyzed with ordinal logistic regression stratified by treatment allocation. We tested for interaction of correctly versus incorrectly guessed treatment allocation with actual treatment allocation on the mRS. Patients with missing data on guessed treatment allocation and patients who died prior to 90-day assessment were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 459 patients were included in this study. The assessors guessed the correct treatment allocation significantly more often than expected (267/459, 58.2%, one-sided p = 0.0003). Correctly guessed treatment allocations were associated with better mRS scores in the intervention group (common odds ratio (cOR): 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50–3.48) and with worse mRS scores in the control group (cOR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27–0.83) (p(interaction) < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Assessors may not always be truly blinded for treatment allocation in clinical trials, and their guesses may be associated with outcome. Although causality between the assessors’ guess and patient outcome cannot be determined, future trials with subjective outcome should make efforts to ensure blinding and should report their blinding method and the success of blinding like the IMS III trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00359424. SAGE Publications 2022-10-19 2023-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10196921/ /pubmed/36169032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17474930221131706 Text en © 2022 World Stroke Organization https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Research
van der Ende, Nadinda AM
Roozenbeek, Bob
Broderick, Joseph P
Khatri, Pooja
Lingsma, Hester F
Dippel, Diederik WJ
Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
title Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
title_full Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
title_fullStr Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
title_full_unstemmed Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
title_short Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
title_sort blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10196921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36169032
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17474930221131706
work_keys_str_mv AT vanderendenadindaam blindingofoutcomeassessorsanditsassociationwithoutcomeinarandomizedopenlabelstroketrial
AT roozenbeekbob blindingofoutcomeassessorsanditsassociationwithoutcomeinarandomizedopenlabelstroketrial
AT broderickjosephp blindingofoutcomeassessorsanditsassociationwithoutcomeinarandomizedopenlabelstroketrial
AT khatripooja blindingofoutcomeassessorsanditsassociationwithoutcomeinarandomizedopenlabelstroketrial
AT lingsmahesterf blindingofoutcomeassessorsanditsassociationwithoutcomeinarandomizedopenlabelstroketrial
AT dippeldiederikwj blindingofoutcomeassessorsanditsassociationwithoutcomeinarandomizedopenlabelstroketrial