Dataset Information

Assessment of blinding in randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for depressive disorders 2000-2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants, blinding can be broken due to the apparent side effects, and unsuccessful blinding can lead to overestimation of effect sizes. New generation antidepressants with less severe side effects may be less susceptible to broken blinding. However, successfulness of blinding in new generation antidepressant trials and its influence on trial effect size estimates remain unclear.

Methods

Extending a previous systematic review assessing blinding successfulness in psychiatric trials (2000-2010), we searched PubMed/Medline for double-blinded antidepressant RCTs (2010-2020) for trials assessing blinding success. Our primary outcome was the degree of blinding successfulness, measured as kappa statistics between guesses and true allocations. We used random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize studies. We used meta-regression and Pearson's r to examine the relationship between blinding success and effect sizes. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021249973).

Findings

Among 154 eligible studies, 11 (7·1%) contained information on blinding assessment between 2010 and 2020. Five studies were added from the previous review, and altogether nine of the 16 studies provided usable data. Agreement in individual studies ranged from κ=-0·14 to 0·38. The summary agreement between guesses and the truth was 0·21 (95% CI: 0·14 to 0·28) among patients and 0·17 (95% CI: 0·05 to 0·30) among assessors. Blinding success was not associated with effect size (patients: r = 0·37, p = 0·32; assessors: r = 0·28; p = 0·72). Meta-regression also failed to find a significant relationship between blinding success and depression effect sizes (β=0·06, p = 0·09).

Interpretation

Less than 10% of the antidepressant RCTs reported blinding assessment. The results in new generation antidepressant trials indicated that patients and assessors were unlikely to be able to judge treatment allocation. There was little evidence that the extent of unblinding biased the effect size estimates of new generation antidepressants.

Funding

None.

SUBMITTER: Lin YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9257339 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlinding aims to minimize biases from what participants and investigators know or believe. Randomized controlled trials, despite being the gold standard to evaluate treatment effect, do not generally assess the success of blinding. We investigated the extent of blinding in back pain trials and the associations between participant guesses and treatment effects.MethodsWe did a review with PubMed/OvidMedline, 2000-2019. Eligibility criteria were back pain trials with data available on treatment effect and participants' guess of treatment. For blinding, blinding index was used as chance-corrected measure of excessive correct guess (0 for random guess). For treatment effects, within- or between-arm effect sizes were used. Analyses of investigators' guess/blinding or by treatment modality were performed exploratorily.ResultsForty trials (3899 participants) were included. Active and sham treatment groups had mean blinding index of 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.41) and 0.01 (-0.11, 0.14), respectively, meaning 26% of participants in active treatment believed they received active treatment, whereas only 1% in sham believed they received sham treatment, beyond chance, that is, random guess. A greater belief of receiving active treatment was associated with a larger within-arm effect size in both arms, and ideal blinding (namely, "random guess," and "wishful thinking" that signifies both groups believing they received active treatment) showed smaller effect sizes, with correlation of effect size and summary blinding indexes of 0.35 (p = 0.028) for between-arm comparison. We observed uniformly large sham treatment effects for all modalities, and larger correlation for investigator's (un)blinding, 0.53 (p = 0.046).ConclusionParticipants in active treatments in back pain trials guessed treatment identity more correctly, while those in sham treatments tended to display successful blinding. Excessive correct guesses (that could reflect weaker blinding and/or noticeable effects) by participants and investigators demonstrated larger effect sizes. Blinding and sham treatment effects on back pain need due consideration in individual trials and meta-analyses.

Project description:Cognitive dysfunction is often present in major depressive disorder (MDD). Several clinical trials have noted a pro-cognitive effect of antidepressants in MDD. The objective of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the pooled efficacy of antidepressants on various domains of cognition in MDD.Trials published prior to April 15, 2015, were identified through searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov, and relevant review articles. Data from randomized clinical trials assessing the cognitive effects of antidepressants were pooled to determine standard mean differences (SMD) using a random-effects model.Nine placebo-controlled randomized trials (2 550 participants) evaluating the cognitive effects of vortioxetine (n = 728), duloxetine (n = 714), paroxetine (n = 23), citalopram (n = 84), phenelzine (n = 28), nortryptiline (n = 32), and sertraline (n = 49) were identified. Antidepressants had a positive effect on psychomotor speed (SMD 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.27; I(2) = 46%) and delayed recall (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.15-0.34; I(2) = 0%). The effect on cognitive control and executive function did not reach statistical significance. Of note, after removal of vortioxetine from the analysis, statistical significance was lost for psychomotor speed. Eight head-to-head randomized trials comparing the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; n = 371), selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; n = 25), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; n = 138), and norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs; n = 46) were identified. No statistically significant difference in cognitive effects was found when pooling results from head-to-head trials of SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and NDRIs. Significant limitations were the heterogeneity of results, limited number of studies, and small sample sizes.Available evidence suggests that antidepressants have a significant positive effect on psychomotor speed and delayed recall.

Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants are commonly used worldwide to treat major depressive disorder. Symptomatic response to antidepressants can vary depending on differences between individuals; however, this variability may reflect nonspecific or random factors.ObjectivesTo investigate the assumption of systematic variability in symptomatic response to antidepressants and to assess whether this variability is associated with severity of major depressive disorder, antidepressant class, or year of study publication.Data sourcesData used were from a recent network meta-analysis of acute treatment with licensed antidepressants in adults with major depressive disorder. The following databases were searched from inception to January 8, 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and PsycINFO. Additional sources were international trial registries, drug approval agency websites, and key scientific journals.Study selectionAnalysis was restricted to double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials with available data at the study's end point.Data extraction and synthesisBaseline and end point means, SDs, number of participants in each group, antidepressant class, and publication year were extracted. The data were analyzed between August 14 and November 18, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresWith the use of validated methods, coefficients of variation were derived for antidepressants and placebo, and their ratios were calculated to compare outcome variability between antidepressant and placebo. Ratios were entered into a random-effects model, with the expectation that response to antidepressants would be more variable than response to placebo. Analysis was repeated after stratifying by baseline severity of depression, antidepressant class (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, and vilazodone; serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors: desvenlafaxine and venlafaxine; norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor: bupropion; noradrenergic agents: amitriptyline and reboxetine; and other antidepressants: agomelatine, mirtazapine, and trazodone), and publication year.ResultsIn the 87 eligible randomized placebo-controlled trials (17 540 unique participants), there was significantly more variability in response to antidepressants than to placebo (coefficients of variation ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17; P < .001). Baseline severity of depression did not moderate variability in response to antidepressants. Variability in response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was lower than variability in response to noradrenergic agents (coefficients of variation ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P = .01), as was the variability in response to other antidepressants compared with noradrenergic agents (coefficients of variation ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97; P = .001). Variability also tended to be lower in studies that were published more recently, with coefficients of variation changing by a value of 0.005 (95% CI, 0.002-0.008; P = .003) for every year a study is more recent.Conclusions and relevanceIndividual differences may be systematically associated with responses to antidepressants in major depressive disorder beyond placebo effects or statistical factors. This study provides empirical support for identifying moderators and personalizing antidepressant treatment.

Project description:Needle acupuncture in small children has gained some acceptance in Western medicine. It is controversial, as infants and toddlers are unable to consent to treatment. We aimed to assess its efficacy for treating infantile colic.A systematic review and a blinding-test validation based on individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Primary end-points were crying time at mid-treatment, at the end of treatment and at a 1-month follow-up. A 30-min mean difference (MD) in crying time between acupuncture and control was predefined as a clinically important difference. Pearson's chi-squared test and the James and Bang indices were used to test the success of blinding of the outcome assessors [parents]. Eligibility criteria and data sources: We included randomised controlled trials of acupuncture treatments of infantile colic. Systematic searches were conducted in Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, and in the Chinese language databases CNKI, VIP, Wang fang, SinoMed and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.We included three randomised controlled trials with data from 307 participants. Only one of the included trials obtained a successful blinding of the outcome assessors in both the acupuncture and control groups. The MD in crying time between acupuncture intervention and no acupuncture control was -24.9?min [95% confidence interval, CI -46.2 to -3.6; three trials] at mid-treatment, -11.4?min [95% CI -31.8 to 9.0; three trials] at the end of treatment and -11.8?min [95% CI -62.9 to 39.2; one trial] at the 4-week follow-up. The corresponding standardised mean differences [SMDs] were -0.23 [95% CI -0.42 to -0.06], -0.10 [95% CI -0.29 to 0.08] and -0.09 [95% CI -0.48 to 0.30]. The heterogeneity was negligible in all analyses. The statistically significant result at mid-treatment was lost when excluding the apparently unblinded study in a sensitivity analysis: MD -13.8?min [95%CI -37.5 to 9.9] and SMD -0.13 [95%CI -0.35 to 0.09]. The registration of crying during treatment suggested more crying during acupuncture [odds ratio 7.7; 95% CI 2.7-20.6; one trial]. GRADE-Moderate quality evidence.Percutaneous needle acupuncture treatments should not be recommended for infantile colic on a general basis. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015023253 Key points The role of acupuncture in the treatment of infantile colic is controversial. Available trials are small and present conflicting results. There were no clinically important differences between infants receiving acupuncture and no acupuncture control in this IPD meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The data indicate that acupuncture induces some treatment pain in many of the children. The study results indicate that percutaneous needle acupuncture should not be recommended for treatment of infantile colic on a general basis.

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study).DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourceCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesMeta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic.Review methodsBlinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding.ResultsThe study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses.ConclusionNo evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.