Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 27, 2025

Randomized, Triple-Blind, and Parallel-Controlled Trial of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Cognitive Rehabilitation after Stroke
Published on: June 6, 2025
Blinding of outcome assessors and its association with outcome in a randomized open-label stroke trial
Nadinda Am van der Ende1,2, Bob Roozenbeek1,2, Joseph P Broderick3
1Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Background:
It is challenging for outcome assessors to remain blinded during outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. If assessors are able to guess the correct treatment allocation more often than expected based on chance, the assessors may have been not properly blinded.
Aims:
We aimed to assess blinding of outcome assessors in a stroke trial with PROBE design and its association with outcome.
Methods:
We used data of the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days was assessed by local assessors who were unaware of treatment allocation. To assess success of blinding, each assessor was asked to guess the patient's treatment allocation. We assessed whether the percentage of correct guesses was higher than chance (i.e. 50%). The association between correctly guessed treatment allocation and the mRS at 90 days was analyzed with ordinal logistic regression stratified by treatment allocation. We tested for interaction of correctly versus incorrectly guessed treatment allocation with actual treatment allocation on the mRS. Patients with missing data on guessed treatment allocation and patients who died prior to 90-day assessment were excluded.
Results:
In total, 459 patients were included in this study. The assessors guessed the correct treatment allocation significantly more often than expected (267/459, 58.2%, one-sided p = 0.0003). Correctly guessed treatment allocations were associated with better mRS scores in the intervention group (common odds ratio (cOR): 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50-3.48) and with worse mRS scores in the control group (cOR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83) (pinteraction < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Assessors may not always be truly blinded for treatment allocation in clinical trials, and their guesses may be associated with outcome. Although causality between the assessors' guess and patient outcome cannot be determined, future trials with subjective outcome should make efforts to ensure blinding and should report their blinding method and the success of blinding like the IMS III trial.
Clinical Trial Registration:
URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00359424.
More Related Videos
03:26Author Spotlight: Advancing Stroke Research with Periorbital Doppler Monitoring of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow in Rodent Models
Published on: November 22, 2024
08:41Lateral Chronic Cranial Window Preparation Enables In Vivo Observation Following Distal Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion in Mice
Published on: December 29, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Blinding
Blind Procedures
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...