A clinical trial gone awry: the Chocolate Happiness Undergoing More Pleasantness (CHUMP) study.

Canadian Medical Association Journal (Impact Factor: 5.81). 01/2008; 177(12):1539-41. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.071161
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The randomized controlled trial is the "gold standard" for evaluating the benefits and harms of interventions. The Chocolate Happiness Undergoing More Pleasantness (CHUMP) study was designed to compare the effects of dark chocolate, milk chocolate and normal chocolate consumption on happiness. Although the intention-to-treat analysis showed that participants who received either dark or milk chocolate were happier than those who received no additional chocolate, the actual-consumption analysis showed that there were no differences between any of the groups. The reason for this result is that many participants switched groups mid-study because of their personal chocolate preferences. Although the CHUMP study was pleasurable, it demonstrated the difficulties associated with performing a truly blinded clinical trial.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on bias in clinical trials may help identify some of the reasons why investigators sometimes reach the wrong conclusions about intervention effects. Several quality components for the assessment of bias control have been suggested, but although they seem intrinsically valid, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate their effects on the extent and direction of bias. This narrative review summarizes the findings of methodological studies on the influence of bias in clinical trials. A number of methodological studies suggest that lack of adequate randomization in published trial reports may be associated with more positive estimates of intervention effects. The influence of double-blinding and follow-up is less clear. Several studies have found a significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions. However, the methodological studies also show that bias is difficult to detect and appraise. The extent of bias in individual trials is unpredictable. A-priori exclusion of trials with certain characteristics is not recommended. Appraising bias control in individual trials is necessary to avoid making incorrect conclusions about intervention effects.
    American Journal of Epidemiology 04/2006; 163(6):493-501. DOI:10.1093/aje/kwj069 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Blinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments. We undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events. This review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmacologic trials.
    PLoS Medicine 11/2006; 3(10):e425. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030425 · 14.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Blinding can reduce bias in randomized clinical trials, but blinding procedures may be unsuccessful. Our aim was to assess how often randomized clinical trials test the success of blinding, the methods involved and how often blinding is reported as being successful. We analysed a random sample of blinded randomized clinical trials indexed in the The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published in 2001. We identified 1599 blinded trials, and noted if they had conducted any test for the success of blinding. We also selected 200 trials randomly that did not report any such test, and sent a questionnaire to the corresponding authors asking them if they had conducted any tests. Thirty-one out of 1599 trials (2%) reported tests for the success of blinding. Test methods varied, and reporting was generally incomplete. Blinding was considered successful in 14 out of the 31 trials (45%) and unclear in 10 (32%). Of the seven trials (23%) reporting unsuccessful blinding the risk of a biased trial result was either not addressed or was discounted in six cases. We received 130 questionnaires from trial authors (65%) of which 15 (12%) informed that they had conducted, but not published, tests. Blinding is rarely tested. Test methods vary, and the reporting of tests, and test results, is incomplete. There is a considerable methodological uncertainty how best to assess blinding, and an urgent need for improved methodology and improved reporting.
    International Journal of Epidemiology 07/2007; 36(3):654-63. DOI:10.1093/ije/dym020 · 9.20 Impact Factor


Available from