↓ Skip to main content

Blinding in randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review and empirical study

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
298 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Blinding in randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review and empirical study
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0226-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascal Probst, Kathrin Grummich, Patrick Heger, Steffen Zaschke, Phillip Knebel, Alexis Ulrich, Markus W. Büchler, Markus K. Diener

Abstract

Blinding is a measure in randomized controlled trials (RCT) to reduce detection and performance bias. There is evidence that lack of blinding leads to overestimated treatment effects. Because of the physical component of interventions, blinding is not easily applicable in surgical trials. This is a protocol for a systematic review and empirical study about actual impact on outcomes and future potential of blinding in general and abdominal surgery RCT. A systematic literature search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science will be conducted to locate RCT between 1996 and 2015 with a surgical intervention. General study characteristics and information on blinding methods will be extracted. The risk of performance and detection bias will be rated as low, unclear or high according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. The main outcome of interest will be the association of a high risk of performance or detection bias with significant trial results and will be tested at a level of significance of 5 %. Further, trials will be meta-analysed in a Mantel-Haenszel model comparing trials with high risk of bias to other trials at a level of significance of 5 %. Detection and performance bias distort treatment effects. The degree of such bias in general and abdominal surgery is unknown. Evidence on influence of missing blinding would improve critical appraisal and conduct of general and abdominal surgery RCT. PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015026837 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 298 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 21%
Student > Master 48 16%
Student > Postgraduate 22 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 4%
Researcher 9 3%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 124 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 65 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 33 11%
Unknown 127 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2023.
All research outputs
#8,576,668
of 25,473,687 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,437
of 2,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,219
of 315,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,473,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.