Close

Clinical trials with nonblinded outcome assessors have high observer bias

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Related stories

Why Early Intervention Is Key To Managing Chronic Health Concerns

Proactive health management is essential for maintaining a good...

Pharmacy’s Impact on Reducing Medication Errors in Hospital Settings

Medication errors are a big problem in healthcare because...

How to Dispose of Pharmaceutical Waste

Proper pharmaceutical waste disposal is crucial for protecting our...

Semaglutide 101: What You Need to Know About This Game-Changing Medication

In the realm of modern medicine, breakthroughs are not...

A new study of randomized clinical trials found significant observer bias toward a more beneficial treatment effect in nonblinded trials when the researcher knew the treatment being given to the participant.

“Nonblinded assessors of subjective measurement scales outcomes in randomized clinical trials tended to generate substantially biased effect sizes,” writes Dr. Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Department, Copenhagen, Denmark, with coauthors.

Danish and French researchers conducted a systematic review of 24 randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the treatment effects. This design enabled a direct and reliable comparison between blind and nonblind results. Sixteen trials (with 2854 patients) had subjective outcomes and were included in the final meta-analysis. Neurology, cosmetic surgery, cardiology, psychiatry, otolaryngology, dermatology, gynecology and infectious diseases were all represented.

“In some trials, conscientious nonblinded assessors may overcompensate for an expected bias in favour of the experimental intervention and paradoxically induce a bias favouring the control, whereas other trials will have fairly neutral assessors with no important bias. Thus, the degree of observer bias in trials with clearly predisposed outcome assessors is likely to be considerably higher than the mean we see here,” write the authors. They suggest using blinded assessors in trials to remove this bias.

 

Latest stories