• Munoz Laguna J
• Nyantakyi E
• Bhattacharyya U
• Blum K
• Delucchi M
• Klingebiel FKL
• Labarile M
• Roggo A
• Weber M
• Radtke T
• Puhan MA
• Hincapie CA

• Affiliation / University of Zurich
• Affiliation / University of Zürich. Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI). Department of Epidemiology
• Back Pain
• Clinical Trials as Topic
• Double-Blind Method
• Methods
• Open Access Document
• Therapy, Soft Tissue

Study design: Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility.

Background: Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment.

Methods: On 7–8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from –1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating ‘random guessing’—balanced ‘active’ and ‘control’ perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis.

Results: 24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, −0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (−0.12 to 0.30) and −0.10 (−0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment.

Conclusions: Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered)

Author Keywords: Methods - Blinding assessment - Manual therapy - Back pain - Double-blind-method - Clinical trial

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text. Online access only