Center for Clinical and Epidemiological Research, University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Interdisciplinary Center for Applied Neuromodulation, University Hospital, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Internal Medicine, UFRGS, Brazil; Neurology Service, EMG Unit, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Feb;125(2):298-305. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.020. Epub 2013 Aug 30.
To compare blinding integrity and associated factors for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) vs. placebo-pill, the gold standard blinding method.
Parallel trial. Depressed participants were randomized to verum/placebo sertraline and active/sham tDCS (2mA, 30-min 10-daily sessions and two additional, fortnight sessions) over 6weeks. Blinding was assessed in completers (n=102) and in a random subgroup (n=35) of raters and participants, in which we also inquired to qualitatively describe their strongest guessing reason.
Participants and raters presented similar performance for predicting treatment assignment at endpoint, correctly guessing tDCS and sertraline beyond chance. Nevertheless, clinical response was associated with correct prediction and tDCS non-responders failed to predict the allocation group. For tDCS, "trouble concentrating" was inversely associated with correct prediction. "Skin redness" was more reported for active-tDCS, but did not predict the allocation group. The qualitative reasons for raters' guessing were not associated with correct prediction, whereas for participants clinical response and adverse effects were directly and inversely associated with correct prediction, respectively.
Blinding integrity of tDCS and sertraline were comparable and mainly associated with efficacy rather than blinding failure.
TDCS blinding can be improved by adopting parallel designs and avoiding subjects' awareness of skin redness.
比较经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)与安慰剂药丸(金标准盲法)的盲法完整性及其相关因素。
平行试验。将抑郁参与者随机分为真/安慰剂舍曲林和活性/假 tDCS(2mA,每日 10 次 30 分钟,共 6 周,另外进行两次两周疗程)。在完成者(n=102)和随机亚组(n=35)的评定者和参与者中评估盲法,我们还询问他们猜测治疗分配的最强理由进行定性描述。
参与者和评定者在终点时对治疗分配的预测表现相似,正确猜测 tDCS 和舍曲林超过了随机猜测。然而,临床反应与正确预测有关,而非 tDCS 反应者无法预测分配组。对于 tDCS,“注意力不集中”与正确预测呈负相关。“皮肤发红”在活性 tDCS 中更常见,但不能预测分配组。评定者猜测的定性原因与正确预测无关,而对于参与者,临床反应和不良反应分别与正确预测呈直接和负相关。
tDCS 和舍曲林的盲法完整性相当,主要与疗效相关,而与盲法失败无关。
通过采用平行设计和避免受试者对皮肤发红的意识,可以提高 tDCS 的盲法完整性。