SynthesisOpen heart2026
Blinding and quality of life endpoints in randomised trials of stable angina: a meta-epidemiological study.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality of life (QoL) measures are commonly used in randomised trials assessing therapies for stable angina. As these outcomes rely on patient reporting, they are susceptible to placebo and expectation effects when blinding is absent. It remains unclear whether trials investigating QoL outcomes in stable angina routinely incorporate blinded designs.
methodsWe performed a meta-epidemiological analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for stable angina, examining the association between QoL endpoint use and trial blinding. Trials were identified through systematic searches of MEDLINE from inception to February 2026. Trial characteristics including intervention type, QoL endpoint use and blinding status were extracted. QoL endpoint use was defined according to the primary endpoint where specified or any reported endpoint otherwise. Associations between QoL endpoint use and trial blinding were evaluated using Poisson regression to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios.
resultsA total of 381 randomised trials were included, of which 58 (15%) incorporated QoL endpoints. QoL endpoint use increased over time. Blinding status was available for 355 trials; 308 (87%) trials reported participant blinding. Trials using QoL endpoints were less frequently blinded than those without QoL endpoints (54% vs 92%). In adjusted analyses, QoL endpoint use was associated with a lower likelihood of blinding (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87, p=0.001). Findings remained consistent in a sensitivity analysis restricted to trials with explicitly stated primary endpoints. This pattern was observed across pharmacological, interventional and other therapies.
conclusionIn randomised trials of therapies for stable angina, QoL endpoints are increasingly used but are less frequently accompanied by blinded trial designs. Given the vulnerability of subjective outcomes to bias, these findings highlight a potential blinding paradox in angina trials, whereby outcomes most prone to bias are often evaluated in studies that are less likely to incorporate blinding. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261336319.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.