The relationship between blinding integrity and medication efficacy in randomised-controlled trials in patients with anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Ruqayyah Haq, Laura Molteni, Nathan T. M. Huneke
{"title":"The relationship between blinding integrity and medication efficacy in randomised-controlled trials in patients with anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ruqayyah Haq,&nbsp;Laura Molteni,&nbsp;Nathan T. M. Huneke","doi":"10.1111/acps.13741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Blinding is thought to minimise expectancy effects and biases in double-blind randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). However, whether blinding integrity should be assessed and reported remains debated. Furthermore, it is unknown whether blinding failure influences the outcome of RCTs in anxiety disorders. We carried out a systematic review to understand whether blinding integrity is assessed and reported in anxiolytic RCTs. A secondary aim was to explore whether blinding integrity is associated with treatment efficacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Our protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022328750). We searched electronic databases for placebo-controlled, randomised trials of medication in adults with generalised and social anxiety disorders, and in panic disorder, from 1980. We extracted data regarding blinding integrity and treatment efficacy. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where possible, we subsequently calculated Bang's Blinding Index, and assessed the association between blinding integrity and treatment effect size.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 247 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, we were able to obtain assessments of blinding integrity from nine (3.64%). Overall, blinding failed in five of these trials (55.56%), but blinding was intact in 80% of placebo arms. We found a significant association between reduced blinding integrity among assessors and increased treatment effect size (betas &lt; −1.30, <i>p</i>'s &lt; 0.001), but this analysis involved only four studies of which two were outlying studies. In patients, we saw a non-significant trend where reduced blinding integrity in the placebo groups was associated with <i>increased</i> treatment efficacy, which was not present in active medication arms. [Correction added on 19 August 2024, after first online publication: Results of the RCTs and its assessment of blinding integrity have been updated.]</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Consistent with work in other psychiatric disorders, blinding integrity is rarely reported in anxiolytic RCTs. Where it is reported, blinding appears to often fail. We found signals that suggest unblinding of clinician assessors (driven by two studies with complete unblinding), and of patients in placebo arms, might be associated with larger treatment effect sizes. We recommend that data regarding blinding integrity, along with the reasons patients and assessors offer for their beliefs regarding group allocation, are systematically collected in RCTs of anxiolytic treatment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":108,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","volume":"150 4","pages":"187-197"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/acps.13741","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13741","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Blinding is thought to minimise expectancy effects and biases in double-blind randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). However, whether blinding integrity should be assessed and reported remains debated. Furthermore, it is unknown whether blinding failure influences the outcome of RCTs in anxiety disorders. We carried out a systematic review to understand whether blinding integrity is assessed and reported in anxiolytic RCTs. A secondary aim was to explore whether blinding integrity is associated with treatment efficacy.

Method

Our protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022328750). We searched electronic databases for placebo-controlled, randomised trials of medication in adults with generalised and social anxiety disorders, and in panic disorder, from 1980. We extracted data regarding blinding integrity and treatment efficacy. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where possible, we subsequently calculated Bang's Blinding Index, and assessed the association between blinding integrity and treatment effect size.

Results

Of the 247 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, we were able to obtain assessments of blinding integrity from nine (3.64%). Overall, blinding failed in five of these trials (55.56%), but blinding was intact in 80% of placebo arms. We found a significant association between reduced blinding integrity among assessors and increased treatment effect size (betas < −1.30, p's < 0.001), but this analysis involved only four studies of which two were outlying studies. In patients, we saw a non-significant trend where reduced blinding integrity in the placebo groups was associated with increased treatment efficacy, which was not present in active medication arms. [Correction added on 19 August 2024, after first online publication: Results of the RCTs and its assessment of blinding integrity have been updated.]

Conclusion

Consistent with work in other psychiatric disorders, blinding integrity is rarely reported in anxiolytic RCTs. Where it is reported, blinding appears to often fail. We found signals that suggest unblinding of clinician assessors (driven by two studies with complete unblinding), and of patients in placebo arms, might be associated with larger treatment effect sizes. We recommend that data regarding blinding integrity, along with the reasons patients and assessors offer for their beliefs regarding group allocation, are systematically collected in RCTs of anxiolytic treatment.

Abstract Image

焦虑症患者随机对照试验中盲法完整性与药物疗效之间的关系:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
背景:在双盲随机对照试验(RCT)中,盲法被认为可以最大限度地减少预期效应和偏差。然而,是否应评估和报告盲法的完整性仍存在争议。此外,盲法失败是否会影响焦虑症 RCT 的结果,目前尚不得而知。我们开展了一项系统性综述,以了解抗焦虑药 RCT 是否对盲法的完整性进行了评估和报告。次要目的是探讨盲法的完整性是否与治疗效果相关:我们的研究方案已预先注册(PROSPERO CRD42022328750)。我们在电子数据库中搜索了自 1980 年以来针对成人广泛性焦虑症、社交焦虑症和惊恐障碍的安慰剂对照随机药物试验。我们提取了有关盲法完整性和治疗效果的数据。偏倚风险采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行评估。在可能的情况下,我们随后计算了Bang的盲法指数,并评估了盲法完整性与治疗效果大小之间的关联:在符合纳入标准的 248 项研究中,我们获得了 9 项(3.63%)研究的盲法完整性评估。总体而言,其中五项试验(55.56%)的盲法失效,但80%的安慰剂治疗臂的盲法是完整的。我们发现,评估者盲法完整性的降低与治疗效果大小的增加之间存在明显关联(贝塔系数<-6.50,P's 结论:与其他精神疾病的研究结果一致,盲法完整性的降低与治疗效果大小的增加之间存在明显关联:与其他精神疾病的研究结果一致,抗焦虑药物临床试验中很少有关于盲法完整性的报道。在有报道的研究中,盲法似乎经常失效。我们发现有迹象表明,解除对临床医生评估者的盲法(由两项完全解除盲法的研究驱动)以及解除对安慰剂治疗组患者的盲法,可能与更大的治疗效果相关。我们建议在抗焦虑治疗的研究中系统地收集有关盲法完整性的数据,以及患者和评估者就其对组别分配的看法所提出的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica acts as an international forum for the dissemination of information advancing the science and practice of psychiatry. In particular we focus on communicating frontline research to clinical psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica has traditionally been and remains a journal focusing predominantly on clinical psychiatry, but translational psychiatry is a topic of growing importance to our readers. Therefore, the journal welcomes submission of manuscripts based on both clinical- and more translational (e.g. preclinical and epidemiological) research. When preparing manuscripts based on translational studies for submission to Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, the authors should place emphasis on the clinical significance of the research question and the findings. Manuscripts based solely on preclinical research (e.g. animal models) are normally not considered for publication in the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信