Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Blinding of study statisticians in clinical trials: a qualitative study in UK clinical trials units

Authors: Mais Iflaifel, Christopher Partlett, Jennifer Bell, Andrew Cook, Carrol Gamble, Steven Julious, Edmund Juszczak, Louise Linsell, Alan Montgomery, Kirsty Sprange

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Blinding is an established approach in clinical trials which aims to minimise the risk of performance and detection bias. There is little empirical evidence to guide UK clinical trials units (CTUs) about the practice of blinding statisticians. Guidelines recommend that statisticians remain blinded to allocation prior to the final analysis. As these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, this study undertook a qualitative investigation relating to when and how statisticians should be blinded in clinical trials.

Methods

Data were collected through online focus groups with various stakeholders who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.

Results

Thirty-seven participants from 19 CTUs participated in one of six focus groups. Four main themes were identified, namely statistical models of work, factors affecting the decision to blind statisticians, benefits of blinding/not blinding statisticians and practicalities. Factors influencing the decision to blind the statistician included available resources, study design and types of intervention and outcomes and analysis.
Although blinding of the statistician is perceived as a desirable mitigation against bias, there was uncertainty about the extent to which an unblinded statistician might impart bias. Instead, in most cases, the insight that the statistician offers was deemed more important to delivery of a trial than the risk of bias they may introduce if unblinded.
Blinding of statisticians was only considered achievable with the appropriate resource and staffing, which were not always available. In many cases, a standard approach to blinding was therefore considered unrealistic and impractical; hence the need for a proportionate risk assessment approach identifying possible mitigations.

Conclusions

There was wide variation in practice between UK CTUs regarding the blinding of trial statisticians. A risk assessment approach would enable CTUs to identify risks associated with unblinded statisticians conducting the final analysis and alternative mitigation strategies. The findings of this study will be used to design guidance and a tool to support this risk assessment process.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Karanicolas P, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: blinding: who, what, when, why, how? Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):345–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Karanicolas P, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Practical tips for surgical research: blinding: who, what, when, why, how? Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):345–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Page S, Persch A. Recruitment, retention, and blinding in clinical trials. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(2):154–61.CrossRef Page S, Persch A. Recruitment, retention, and blinding in clinical trials. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(2):154–61.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Haahr MT, Hrobjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials. 2006;3:360–5.CrossRef Haahr MT, Hrobjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials. 2006;3:360–5.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Anand R, Norrie J, Bradley J, McAuley D, Clarke M. Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best. BMJ. 2020;368:l6228.CrossRef Anand R, Norrie J, Bradley J, McAuley D, Clarke M. Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best. BMJ. 2020;368:l6228.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen A, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–E11.CrossRef Hróbjartsson A, Thomsen A, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–E11.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Moustgaard H, Clayton G, Jones H, Boutron I, Jørgensen L, Laursen D, et al. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2020;368:l6802.CrossRef Moustgaard H, Clayton G, Jones H, Boutron I, Jørgensen L, Laursen D, et al. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2020;368:l6802.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Iflaifel M, Lim R, Ryan K, Crowley C. Resilient Health Care: a systematic review of conceptualisations, study methods and factors that develop resilience. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):324.CrossRef Iflaifel M, Lim R, Ryan K, Crowley C. Resilient Health Care: a systematic review of conceptualisations, study methods and factors that develop resilience. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):324.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Stewart D, Shamdasani P, Rook D. Focus groups: theory and practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.CrossRef Stewart D, Shamdasani P, Rook D. Focus groups: theory and practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92.CrossRef Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Cascio M, Lee E, Vaudrin N, Freedman D. A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods. 2019;31(2):116–30.CrossRef Cascio M, Lee E, Vaudrin N, Freedman D. A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods. 2019;31(2):116–30.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, et al. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(7):1–238.CrossRef Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, et al. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(7):1–238.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Brown S, Nixon J, Ransom M, Gilberts R, Dewhirst N, McGinnis E, et al. Multiple Interventions for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment Trial (MIDFUT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e035947.CrossRef Brown S, Nixon J, Ransom M, Gilberts R, Dewhirst N, McGinnis E, et al. Multiple Interventions for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment Trial (MIDFUT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e035947.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fleming T, Ellenberg S, DeMets D. Monitoring clinical trials: issues and controversies regarding confidentiality. Stat Med. 2002;21(19):2843–51.CrossRef Fleming T, Ellenberg S, DeMets D. Monitoring clinical trials: issues and controversies regarding confidentiality. Stat Med. 2002;21(19):2843–51.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Meinert C. Clinical trials and treatment effects monitoring. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(6):515–22.CrossRef Meinert C. Clinical trials and treatment effects monitoring. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(6):515–22.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bryant J. What is the appropriate role of the trial statistician in preparing and presenting interim findings to an independent Data Monitoring Committee in the U.S. Cancer Cooperative Group setting? Stat Med. 2004;23(10):1507–11.CrossRef Bryant J. What is the appropriate role of the trial statistician in preparing and presenting interim findings to an independent Data Monitoring Committee in the U.S. Cancer Cooperative Group setting? Stat Med. 2004;23(10):1507–11.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Pallmann P, Bedding A, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson L, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):29.CrossRef Pallmann P, Bedding A, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Hampson L, et al. Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):29.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Balk E, Bonis P, Moskowitz H, Schmid C, Ioannidis J, Wang C, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Jama. 2002;287(22):2973–82.CrossRef Balk E, Bonis P, Moskowitz H, Schmid C, Ioannidis J, Wang C, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Jama. 2002;287(22):2973–82.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Monaghan TF, Agudelo CW, Rahman SN, Wein AJ, Lazar JM, Everaert K, Dmochowski RR. Blinding in clinical trials: seeing the big picture. Medicina. 2021;57(7):647. Monaghan TF, Agudelo CW, Rahman SN, Wein AJ, Lazar JM, Everaert K, Dmochowski RR. Blinding in clinical trials: seeing the big picture. Medicina. 2021;57(7):647.
25.
go back to reference Califf R. Pragmatic clinical trials: emerging challenges and new roles for statisticians. Clin Trials. 2016;13(5):471–7.CrossRef Califf R. Pragmatic clinical trials: emerging challenges and new roles for statisticians. Clin Trials. 2016;13(5):471–7.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Wan M, Orlu-Gul M, Legay H, Tuleu C. Blinding in pharmacological trials: the devil is in the details. Arch Dis Child. 2013;98(9):656–9.CrossRef Wan M, Orlu-Gul M, Legay H, Tuleu C. Blinding in pharmacological trials: the devil is in the details. Arch Dis Child. 2013;98(9):656–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Blinding of study statisticians in clinical trials: a qualitative study in UK clinical trials units
Authors
Mais Iflaifel
Christopher Partlett
Jennifer Bell
Andrew Cook
Carrol Gamble
Steven Julious
Edmund Juszczak
Louise Linsell
Alan Montgomery
Kirsty Sprange
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06481-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue