In the dark: The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials

Victor M. Montori, Mohit Bhandari, P. J. Devereaux, Braden J. Manns, William A. Ghali, Gordon H. Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

100 Scopus citations


To determine the quality of reporting of blinding in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we evaluated 40 consecutive RCTs published in each of five leading journals. We noted whether authors reported the blinding status of participants, health care providers, data collectors, judicial assessors of outcomes, data analysts, and manuscript writers. Explicit reporting of blinding status occurred in <25% of RCTs for all groups. Eighty-three RCTs, reported as double-blind, provided eight combinations of blinded groups. In conclusion, prestigious journals do not currently report blinding status optimally. To do so, journals should abandon the term "double blind" and explicitly report the blinding status of the groups involved in RCTs. Until such reporting occurs, clinicians will be left with uncertainty about the validity of RCTs that guide their clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)787-790
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Issue number8
StatePublished - Aug 1 2002


  • Blinding
  • Critical appraisal
  • Double blinding
  • Masking
  • Randomized clinical trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology


Dive into the research topics of 'In the dark: The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this