Background: Blinding 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Forty 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). Conclusion: Participants 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.

No abstract

Objectives What sonographic variables are most predictive for acute cholecystitis? What variables differentiate acute and chronic cholecystitis? Methods The surgical pathology database was reviewed to identify adult patients who underwent cholecystectomy for cholecystitis and had a preceding ultrasound of the right upper quadrant within 7 days. A total of 236 patients were included in the study. A comprehensive imaging review was performed to assess for gallstones, gallbladder wall thickening, gallbladder distension, pericholecystic fluid, gallstone mobility, the sonographic Murphy's sign, mural hyperemia, and the common hepatic artery peak systolic velocity. Results Of 236 patients with a cholecystectomy, 119 had acute cholecystitis and 117 had chronic cholecystitis on surgical pathology. Statistical models were created for prediction. The simple model consists of three sonographic variables and has a sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 83% in predicting acute versus chronic cholecystitis. The most predictive variables for acute cholecystitis were elevated common hepatic artery peak systolic velocity, gallbladder distension, and gallbladder mural abnormalities. If a patient had all three of these findings on their preoperative ultrasound, the patient had a 96% chance of having acute cholecystitis. Two of these variables gave a 73–93% chance of having acute cholecystitis. One of the three variables gave a 40–76% chance of having acute cholecystitis. If the patient had 0 of 3 of the predictor variables, there was a 29% chance of having acute cholecystitis. Conclusions Gallbladder distension, gallbladder mural abnormalities, and elevated common hepatic artery peak systolic velocity are the most important sonographic variables in predicting acute versus chronic cholecystitis.