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

Type: Article

Publication Date: 2023-01-31

Citations: 2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06992-5

Abstract

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.

Locations

  • Trials - View - PDF
  • PubMed Central - View
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) - View - PDF
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) - View - PDF
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) - View - PDF
  • PubMed - View
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds) - View - PDF

Similar Works

Action Title Year Authors
+ PDF Chat The unblinding of statisticians in clinical trials: commentary on Iflaifel et al., Trials 2023 2023 Richard A. Parker
+ Blinding in Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach 2012 Heejung Bang
Jongbae J. Park
+ Factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care: A systematic review 2022 Marina Zaki
Lydia O’Sullivan
Declan Devane
Ricardo Segurado
Éilish McAuliffe
+ PDF Chat Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers 2023 Shao-Fan Hsieh
Victoria Yorke-Edwards
Macey L Murray
Carlos DĂ­az-MontaĂąa
Sharon Love
Matthew R. Sydes
+ PDF Chat Assessing the Overall Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials 2021 Alexander Krauß
+ Bias Control – A Closer Look at Blinding and Randomization 2008
+ PDF Chat GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence 2018 Holger J. SchĂźnemann
Carlos A. Cuello‐García
Elie A. Akl
Reem A. Mustafa
Joerg J Meerpohl
Kris Thayer
Rebecca L. Morgan
Gerald Gartlehner
Regina Kunz
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
+ PDF Chat Which Randomization Methods Are Used Most Frequently in Clinical Trials? Results of a Survey by the Randomization Working Group 2023 Oleksandr Sverdlov
Kerstine Carter
R.-D Hilgers
Colin Everett
Vance W. Berger
Yuqun Luo
Jonathan Chipman
Yevgen Ryeznik
Jennifer Ross
Ruth Knight
+ PDF Chat Influence of lack of blinding on the estimation of medication-related harms: a retrospective cohort study of randomized controlled trials 2024 Chang Xu
Fengying Zhang
Suhail A.R. Doi
Luis Furuya‐Kanamori
Lifeng Lin
Haitao Chu
Xi Yang
Sheyu Li
Liliane Zorzela
Su Golder
+ PDF Chat Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit–risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop 2023 Nikki Totton
Steven A. Julious
Elizabeth Coates
Dyfrig Hughes
Jonathan Cook
Katie Biggs
Catherine Hewitt
Simon Day
Andrew Cook
+ PDF Chat Towards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up-to-date review 2009 Jafar Kolahi
Heejung Bang
Jong‐Bae Park
+ PDF Chat Adapting the randomised controlled trial (RCT) for precision medicine: introducing the nested-precision RCT (npRCT) 2021 Nils Kappelmann
Bertram Müller‐Myhsok
Johannes Kopf‐Beck
+ PDF Chat Sample size calculations for blinding assessment 2017 Victoria Landsman
Mark Fillery
Howard Vernon
Heejung Bang
+ PDF Chat Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews 2017 Brian Hutton
Dianna Wolfe
David Moher
Larissa Shamseer
+ Methodological and reporting issues in a randomised controlled trial: Comment on de la Fuente et al (2020) 2020 Peter O’Halloran
+ PDF Chat A review of UK publicly funded non-inferiority trials: Is the design more inferior than it should be? 2023 Nikki Totton
Steven A. Julious
Stephen J. Walters
Elizabeth Coates
+ PDF Chat A systematic review of randomisation method use in RCTs and association of trial design characteristics with method selection 2022 Cydney Bruce
Edmund Juszczak
Reuben Ogollah
Christopher Partlett
Alan Montgomery
+ Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses – the METSA systematic review 2024 Christian Gunge Riberholt
Markus Harboe Olsen
Joachim Birch Milan
Sigurlaug Hanna HafliĂ°adĂłttir
Jeppe Houmann Svanholm
Elisabeth Buck Pedersen
Charles Chin Han Lew
M. Asante
Johanne Pereira Ribeiro
Vibeke Wagner
+ PDF Chat Letter to the editor regarding "Incomparability of treatment groups is often blindly ignored in randomised controlled trials – a post hoc analysis of baseline characteristic tables" 2021 Ruth Knight
Jonathan Cook
+ PDF Chat Towards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up‐to‐date review 2009 Jafar Kolahi
Heejung Bang
Jong‐Bae Park