ObjectivesTo analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors’ interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs.MethodsThis was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors’ interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications.ResultsOut of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials.ConclusionsReporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term ‘double-blind’ for different blinding practices.

AimTo investigate whether the introduction of a vertical subject on research in biomedicine and founding of The Cochrane Collaboration branch at the University of Split School of Medicine influenced students’ knowledge and attitudes toward evidence-based medicine (EBM), including the use of research literature.MethodsWe used a 26-item questionnaire on EBM knowledge and attitudes to survey 1232 medical students of all study years in 3 medical schools in Croatia (Split, Rijeka, Osijek) and the Croatian-speaking medical school in Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina).ResultsStudents from the University of Split School of Medicine who had been exposed to the vertical subject on research in biomedicine and activities of The Cochrane Collaboration at the school had better knowledge and more positive attitudes toward EBM. In general, students rarely searched for evidence; 28% of students searched for evidence more than once a month and 96% of students used only textbooks in Croatian and teachers’ handouts, even though 74% of students agreed that articles from scholarly journals were an important supplement for textbooks.ConclusionBuilding up an environment that fosters EBM may be beneficial for students’ knowledge and attitudes toward EBM. Teachers should encourage and require using evidence during all the courses in medical school.