Location of Repository

Blinded assessment of treatment effects utilizing information about the randomization block length

By F. (Frank) Miller, Tim Friede and Meinhard Kieser

Abstract

It is essential for the integrity of double-blind clinical trials that during the study course the individual treatment allocations of the patients as well as the treatment effect remain unknown to any involved person. Recently, methods have been proposed for which it was claimed that they would allow reliable estimation of the treatment effect based on blinded data by using information about the block length of the randomization procedure. If this would hold true, it would be difficult to preserve blindness without taking further measures. The suggested procedures apply to continuous data. We investigate the properties of these methods thoroughly by repeated simulations per scenario. Furthermore, a method for blinded treatment effect estimation in case of binary data is proposed, and blinded tests for treatment group differences are developed both for continuous and binary data. We report results of comprehensive simulation studies that investigate the features of these procedures. It is shown that for sample sizes and treatment effects which are typical in clinical trials, no reliable inference can be made on the treatment group difference which is due to the bias and imprecision of the blinded estimates

Topics: RE, R1
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:2187

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2005). A method to estimate the variance of an endpoint from an ongoing blinded trial. Statistics in Medicine doi
  2. (1960). A rating scale for depression. doi
  3. (1978). An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics doi
  4. (2005). Are we really that blind? doi
  5. (2007). Assessment of the Gould-Shih procedure for sample size reestimation. Pharmaceutical Statistics doi
  6. (2005). Authors’ Reply to Letter to the Editor by Gould doi
  7. (1995). Biostatistical methodology in clinical trials in applications for marketing authorizations for medicinal products. Statistics in Medicine doi
  8. (2002). Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. The Lancet doi
  9. (1994). Clinically relevant effect sizes in depression. doi
  10. (2008). Effectiveness of paroxetine in the treatment of acute major depression in adults: a systematic re-examination of published and unpublished data from randomized trials. doi
  11. (2001). Efficacy and tolerability of Hypericum extract WS 5572 versus placebo in mildly to moderately depressed patients. A randomized double-blind multicenter clinical trial. Pharmacopsychiatry doi
  12. (1999). Harmonised Tripartite Guideline E9: Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. Statistics in Medicine doi
  13. (2008). Maintaining confidentiality of interim data to enhance trial integrity and credibility. Clinical Trials doi
  14. (2002). On the inappropriateness of an EM algorithm based procedure for blinded sample size re-estimation. Statistics in Medicine doi
  15. (2002). Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. doi
  16. (2009). Re-estimating the sample size of an on-going blinded trial based on the method of randomization block sums. Statistics in Medicine doi
  17. (2007). Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design.
  18. (1992). Sample size re-estimation without unblinding for normally distributed outcomes with unknown variance. doi
  19. (2005). St John’s Wort for Depression (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration: Oxford, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.