Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

: Lack of blinding in randomized clinical trials can bias the effect estimates of the observed intervention. In trials assessing nonpharmacological interventions (eg, surgical randomized clinical trials) blinding is usually more difficult. In this mini-review the blinding and reporting of blinding was assessed from surgical randomized clinical trials that were published in leading medical and surgical journals in 2015. Conducting a systematic search on PubMed, a total of 99 studies were deemed as relevant and blinding status assessed. Blinding was explicitly stated for practitioners, patients, and outcome observers in 3%, 37%, and 52%, respectively. The blinding status was not clearly stated in a large proportion of studies or had sometimes a misleading classification. Hence, authors and journals publishing randomized controlled trials should pay attention that status of blinding is unambiguously reported.

Original publication




Journal article


Ann surg

Publication Date





21 - 22


Bias, General Surgery, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design