Do open label blinded outcome studies of novel anticoagulants versus warfarin have equivalent validity to those carried out under double-blind conditions?
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
The three-model screen
all 1,000 screened works →All three models called this metaresearch. It is in the settled core of the field.
Meta-epidemiological comparison of PROBE versus double-blind trial designs and whether design affects estimated effects; the object is study design and its validity.
The object is whether different clinical trial designs have equivalent validity, which directly studies research methods.
Primary object is clinical-trial design validity (PROBE vs double-blind), i.e. research methods properties.
Abstract
Recent anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF have been tested in active comparator controlled studies versus warfarin using two designs: double-blind, double-dummy and prospective randomised, open blinded endpoint (PROBE). The former requires elaborate procedures to maintain blinding, while PROBE does not. Outcomes of double-blind and PROBE designed studies of novel anticoagulants for AF, focusing on warfarin controls, were explored. Major, Phase III warfarin-controlled trials for stroke prevention in AF were identified. Odds ratios (ORs) of key outcomes for active comparators versus VKA and event rates for VKA arms were compared between designs, in context of baseline demographics and inclusion criteria. Identified trials studied five novel anticoagulants in three each of PROBE and double-blind design. For ORs of results across studies and outcomes, there was little pattern differentiating the two designs. Among VKA-control subjects, event rates for the primary outcome (stroke or systemic embolism) in PROBE trials at 1.74 %/year (95% confidence interval: 1.54-1.95) was not significantly different from that in double-blind trials, at 1.88 (1.73-2.03). Among other outcomes, VKA-treated subjects in both trial designs had similar event rates, apart from higher all-cause mortality in ROCKET AF, and lower myocardial infarction rates among the PROBE study patients. Although there are differences in outcome between PROBE and double blind trials, they do not appear to be design-related. The exacting requirements of double-blinding in AF trials may not be necessary.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
The record
- Venue
- Thrombosis and Haemostasis
- Topic
- Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Group for Research in Decision Analysis
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- WarfarinMedicineOutcome (game theory)SurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationMathematics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes