Advertisement

Masking Study Participants

  • Lea DryeEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Masking or blinding in clinical trials refers to the process of keeping the identity of the assigned treatment hidden from specific groups of individuals such as participants, study staff, or outcome assessors. The purpose of masking is to minimize conscious and unconscious bias in the conduct and interpretation of a trial. Masking participants in clinical trials is a key methodological procedure since patient expectations can introduce bias directly through how a participant reports patient-reported outcomes but also indirectly through his or her willingness to participate in and adhere to study activities.

The complexity of operational aspects of masking participants is often underestimated. Masking is facilitated by placebos, dummies, sham devices, or sham procedures/surgeries. The success of masking depends on how closely the placebo or sham matches the active treatment. Creation of a completely identical placebo is generally possible only when active drug and matching placebo are provided by the manufacturer. Masking of participants becomes more complicated if there are more than two experimental treatment groups, an active control, if treatments are taken at different intervals or via different routes, or if sham devices or procedures are required.

Trials in which participants are masked should have procedures in place to unmask. Most unmasking is routine unmasking in which investigators communicate treatment assignment with participants after treatment and follow-up are complete. In addition to this routine unmasking, masked trials should have procedures to immediately unmask at any hour of the day in the event of an emergency.

Keywords

Blind Mask Single mask Double mask Unmask Placebo Sham 

References

  1. Brunoni AR, Moffa AH, Sampaio-Junior B, Borrione L, Moreno ML, Fernandes RA, Veronezi BP, Nogueira BS, Aparicio LVM, Razza LB, Chamorro R, Tort LC, Fraguas R, Lotufo PA, Gattaz WF, Fregni F, Bensenor IM (2017) Trial of electrical direct-current therapy versus Escitalopram for depression. N Engl J Med 376(26):2523–2533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gross RE, Watts RL, Hauser RA, Bakay RA, Reichmann H, von Kummer R, Ondo WG, Reissig E, Eisner W, Steiner-Schulze H, Siedentop H, Fichte K, Hong W, Cornfeldt M, Beebe K, Sandbrink R (2011) Intrastriatal transplantation of microcarrier-bound human retinal pigment epithelial cells versus sham surgery in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 10(6):509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Holbrook JT, Sugar EA, Brown RH, Drye LT, Irvin CG, Schwartz AR, Tepper RS, Wise RA, Yasin RZ, Busk MF (2016) Effect of continuous positive airway pressure on airway reactivity in asthma. A randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc 13(11):1940–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S (2014) Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol 43(4):1272–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Martin BK, Meinert CL, Breitner JC (2002) Double placebo design in a prevention trial for Alzheimer's disease. Control Clin Trials 23(1):93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mease P, Hall S, FitzGerald O, van der Heijde D, Merola JF, Avila-Zapata F, Cieslak D, Graham D, Wang C, Menon S, Hendrikx T, Kanik KS (2017) Tofacitinib or Adalimumab versus placebo for psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med 377(16):1537–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Clinical AffairsBlue Cross Blue Shield AssociationChicagoUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • O. Dale Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of AlabamaBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations