Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials

Objective Unblinded outcome assessment can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect in randomised trials. We reviewed published trials to assess how often blinded assessment is used, and whether its use varies according to the type of outcome or assessor. Design and setting A review of parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. Main outcome measures Whether assessment of the primary outcome was blinded, and whether this differed according to outcome or assessor type. Results We identified 258 eligible trials. Of these, 106 (41%) were reported as double-blind, and 152 (59%) as partially or fully open-label (that is, they included some groups who were unblinded, such as patients, those delivering the intervention, or those in charge of medical care). Of the 152 open trials, 125 required outcome assessment. Of these 125 trials, only 26% stated that outcome assessment was blinded; 51% gave no information on whether assessment was blinded or not. Furthermore, 18% of trials did not state who performed the assessment. The choice of outcome type (e.g. instrument measured, rated, or naturally occurring event) did not appear to influence whether blinded assessment was performed (range 24-32% for the most common outcome types). However, the choice of outcome assessor did influence blinding; independent assessors were blinded much more frequently (71%) than participant (5%) or physician (24%) assessors. Despite this, open trials did not use independent assessors any more frequently than double-blind trials (17% vs. 18% respectively). Conclusions Blinding of outcome assessors is infrequently used and poorly reported. Increased use of independent assessors could increase the frequency of blinded assessment

Environmental factors in early childhood are associated with multiple sclerosis: a case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (CNS) with increasing incidence mainly in high-income countries. One explanation of this phenomenon may be a higher prevalence of allergic and autoimmune diseases in industrialized countries as a consequence of otherwise beneficial advances in sanitation (hygiene hypothesis). We investigated environmental factors in early childhood associated with MS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A case-control study was performed of 245 MS patients and 296 population-based controls in Berlin. The study participants completed a standardized questionnaire on environmental factors in childhood and youth, including aspects of personal and community hygiene. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors in childhood and youth associated with the occurrence of MS.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean age was 46 years (range, 20-80) in the MS group and 42 years (range 18-80) in the control group, of which 73.9% in the MS and 61.5% in the control group were female. The multivariable analysis showed that having at least two older siblings (OR 0.54; p = 0.05, for individuals with two older siblings compared to individuals without older siblings), attending a day-care center (OR 0.5; p = 0.004) and growing up in an urban center with more than 100, 000 inhabitants (OR 0.43; p = 0.009) were factors independently associated with a lower chance for MS.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The hygiene hypothesis may play a role in the occurrence of MS and could explain disease distribution and increasing incidence.</p

Paradigms in multiple sclerosis: time for a change, time for a unifying concept

It has recently been suggested that, rather than being an autoimmune disease, multiple sclerosis (MS) is an example of a neurocristopathy, a pathological process resulting from a faulty development of the neural crest. Whilst several characteristics of the disease suggest a neurocristopathy, other aetiological factors require consideration, including hygiene-related factors that alter the immune responses to common pathogens resulting in an eclipse of immune reactivity that could protect against MS, the possible role of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) in pathogenesis and autoimmune phenomena, HLA polymorphism, vitamin D levels before and after birth and immune repair mechanisms. A postulated aetiological factor in MS, associated with altered vitamin D metabolism and abnormal HERV expression, is a long-lasting disturbed redox regulation in the biosynthesis of a melanoma-like melanin pigment. Although intensive further studies on melanin pigments in nerve tissue in MS are required, the known properties of a pathological form of such pigments in melanoma could explain a number of observations in MS, including the impact of light, UV-light, and vitamin D, and could explain the clinical manifestations of MS on the basis of an oscillating process of oxidative charge and discharge of the pigments and a threshold phenomenon with a change of the quasi-catalytic function of the pigment from destroying reactive oxygen radicals or species to transforming them to more harmful long-persisting highly reactive species. Taken together with the consequences of an adaptive process in partly demyelinated neurons, resulting in an increase in number of mitochondria, and the impact of stressful life events, these conditions are necessary and sufficient to explain the disease process of MS with its spatial (plaques) and temporal (attacks and remissions) characteristics. This suggested unifying concept of the pathogenesis of MS may open perspectives for prevention, diagnosis and therapy. In particular, prevention may be achieved by vaccinating against Epstein-Barr virus in early childhood

The Causal Cascade to Multiple Sclerosis: A Model for MS Pathogenesis

BACKGROUND: MS pathogenesis seems to involve both genetic susceptibility and environmental risk factors. Three sequential factors are implicated in the environmental risk. The first acts near birth, the second acts during childhood, and the third acts long thereafter. Two candidate factors (vitamin D deficiency and Epstein-Barr viral infection) seem well suited to the first two environmental events. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A mathematical Model for MS pathogenesis is developed, incorporating these environmental and genetic factors into a causal scheme that can explain some of the recent changes in MS-epidemiology (e.g., increasing disease prevalence, a changing sex-ratio, and regional variations in monozygotic twin concordance rates). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This Model suggests that genetic susceptibility is overwhelmingly the most important determinant of MS pathogenesis. Indeed, over 99% of individuals seem genetically incapable of developing MS, regardless of what environmental exposures they experience. Nevertheless, the contribution of specific genes to MS-susceptibility seems only modest. Thus, despite HLA DRB1*1501 being the most consistently identified genetic marker of MS-susceptibility (being present in over 50% of northern MS patient populations), only about 1% of individuals with this allele are even genetically susceptible to getting MS. Moreover, because genetic susceptibility seems so similar throughout North America and Europe, environmental differences principally determine the regional variations in disease characteristics. Additionally, despite 75% of MS-patients being women, men are 60% more likely to be genetically-susceptible than women. Also, men develop MS at lower levels of environmental exposure than women. Nevertheless, women are more responsive to the recent changes in environmental-exposure (whatever these have been). This explains both the changing sex-ratio and the increasing disease prevalence (which has increased by a minimum of 32% in Canada over the past 35 years). As noted, environmental risk seems to result from three sequential components of environmental exposure. The potential importance of this Model for MS pathogenesis is that, if correct, a therapeutic strategy, designed to interrupt one or more of these sequential factors, has the potential to markedly reduce or eliminate disease prevalence in the future

Information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials.

Information on blinding is part of the data that should be provided upon registration of a trial at a clinical trials registry. Reporting of blinding is often absent or of low quality in published articles of clinical trials. This study researched the presence and quality of information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials and highlights the important role of data-recording formats at clinical trial registries in ensuring high-quality registration

Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

CONTEXT: Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports. OBJECTIVE: To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials. DESIGN: Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles. RESULTS: One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion

Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the reporting on blinding in protocols and articles describing randomized controlled trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We studied 73 protocols of trials approved by the scientific/ethical committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, 1994 and 1995, and their corresponding publications. RESULTS: Three out of 73 trials (4%) reported blinding in the protocol that contradicted that in the publication (e.g., "open" vs. "double blind"). The proportion of "double-blind" trials with a clear description of the blinding of participants increased from 11 out of 58 (19%) when based on publications alone to 39 (67%) when adding the information in the protocol. The similar proportions for the blinding of health care providers were 2 (3%) and 22 (38%); and for the blinding of data collectors, they were 8 (14%) and 14 (24%). In 52 of 58 publications (90%), it was unclear whether all patients, health care providers, and data collectors had been blinded. In 4 of the 52 trials (7%), the protocols clarified that all three key trial persons had been blinded. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting on blinding in both trial protocols and publications is often inadequate. We suggest developing international guidelines for the reporting of trial protocols and public access to protocols