Meta-epidemiology and the MetaBLIND study
Response to Tack
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 7464802 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Helene Moustgaard (0000-0002-7057-5251, University of Southern Denmark, autor de correspondencia), Asbjørn Hróbjartsson (0000-0002-2451-5012, University of Southern Denmark) |
| Año | 2023 |
| Volumen | 28 |
| Número | 9 |
| Páginas | 882-886 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2023-04-10 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Journal of Health Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 1359-1053 • E-ISSN: 1461-7277 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/13591053231167279 |
| PMID | 37038625 |
| OpenAlex | W4364353839 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Referencias citadas | 9 |
In 2020 we published MetaBLIND, a large meta-epidemiological study on the impact of masking on effect estimates in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). While masking is an established methodological practice in RCTs it is not clear to what extent results of non-masked RCTs are biased. Surprisingly, we found no evidence of an impact of masking on effect estimates, on average. Michiel Tack commented on the MetaBLIND study, and here we respond. The issues he raised were examples of standard themes when interpreting meta-epidemiological studies, which we have discussed at some length elsewhere, and did not warrant change of our conclusion. We maintain that the MetaBLIND results do not provide a sufficient basis for recommending abandoning masking as a methodological safeguard
Masking (illustration · Meta-analysis · Pathology · Randomized controlled trial · Warrant · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Psychology · Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials · Clinical Psychology · Epidemiology · Surgery
| Velocidad de citación | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | No |