Outcome assessment with blinded versus unblinded POP-Q exams.

نویسندگان

  • Danielle D Antosh
  • Cheryl B Iglesia
  • Sonali Vora
  • Andrew I Sokol
چکیده

OBJECTIVE To determine whether blinded and unblinded Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examinations differ in a randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN Blinded POP-Q examinations performed at 3 months and 1 year were compared with unblinded examinations performed by the surgeon in a randomized trial of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. RESULTS Sixty-five patients were included in the study. Correlations between the blinded and unblinded POP-Q points and stages varied from low to moderate (rho = 0.29-0.78). At 3 months, the blinded overall prolapse recurrence rate was 45.3% compared with 39.1% based on unblinded staging (P = .34). At 1 year, the blinded overall recurrence rate was significantly higher than the unblinded recurrence rate: 68.3% vs 53.3% (P = .004). The 1-year blinded anterior wall recurrence rate was also higher than the recurrence based on unblinded staging: 56.7% vs 43.3% (P = .021). CONCLUSION Use of unblinded POP-Q staging resulted in underestimation of 1-year overall recurrence after prolapse repair.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Investigating the effect of independent, blinded digital image assessment on the STOP GAP trial

BACKGROUND Blinding is the process of keeping treatment assignment hidden and is used to minimise the possibility of bias. Trials at high risk of bias have been shown to report larger treatment effects than low-risk studies. In dermatology, one popular method of blinding is to have independent outcome assessors who are unaware of treatment allocation assessing the endpoint using digital photogr...

متن کامل

Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials

BACKGROUND Blinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios. METHODS We describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias. RESULTS TRIGGER was an op...

متن کامل

Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials

OBJECTIVE Unblinded outcome assessment can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect in randomised trials. We reviewed published trials to assess how often blinded assessment is used, and whether its use varies according to the type of outcome or assessor. DESIGN AND SETTING A review of parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ...

متن کامل

Digital blinding of radiographs to mask allocation in a randomized control trial

AIM To demonstrate the effectiveness of a digital radiographic altering technique in concealing treatment allocation to blind outcome assessment of distal femur fracture fixation. METHODS Digital postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs from a sample of 33 randomly-selected patients with extra-articular distal femur fractures treated by surgical fixation at a Level 1 trauma cente...

متن کامل

The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment have been shown to reduce bias in human studies. Authors from the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) collaboration recently found that these features protect against bias in animal stroke studies. We extended the scope the work from C...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • American journal of obstetrics and gynecology

دوره 205 5  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2011