1 The two radiologists
were blinded to all clinical information, including path
2 wed by gastrointestinal cytopathologists who
were blinded to all data.
3 uantitatively assessed by two physicians who
were blinded to all other data.
4 had no disclosed conflicts of interest, and
were blinded to all study hypotheses and identifying cha
5 come, measured by the trial statistician who
was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antib
6 assessed after 12 months by an observer who
was blinded to allocation.
7 Parents or guardians
were blinded to allocation assignment until informed con
8 Parents and staff
were blinded to allocation.
9 of a pulley lesion by three radiologists who
were blinded to arthroscopic results.
10 Providers
were blinded to automated defibrillator waveform.
11 randomized and assigned to a radiologist who
was blinded to biopsy results for retrospective assessme
12 Physicians
were blinded to BNP levels and asked to give their proba
13 Two independent cardiologists
were blinded to BNP levels and asked to review the data
14 Patients and physicians
were blinded to BNP levels.
15 Echocardiographers and clinicians
were blinded to BNP levels.
16 logists making the assessment of LV function
were blinded to BNP levels.
17 Final endoscopic diagnoses
were blinded to calprotectin values.
18 ther a study arm in which the endoscopy team
was blinded to capnography or an open arm in which the e
19 A reader who
was blinded to case status and year of mammogram perform
20 viewed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists who
were blinded to case status.
21 Patients and staff
were blinded to categorization.
22 readers with expertise in spine imaging, who
were blinded to center and patient identification inform
23 During the ablation procedure, the operator
was blinded to CF information.
24 Confocal evaluation
was blinded to clinical and dermoscopic diagnosis.
25 The CMR investigators
were blinded to clinical and genetic data.
26 ospectively by two thoracic radiologists who
were blinded to clinical and pathologic data.
27 The radiologist and pathologist
were blinded to clinical and pathology/imaging data, res
28 Investigators
were blinded to clinical details except for 2 of 4 dupli
29 The observers
were blinded to clinical history, and the two reviews to
30 ensus by two pediatric neuroradiologists who
were blinded to clinical information.
31 line and interim PET scans independently and
were blinded to clinical information.
32 re reviewed independently by two readers who
were blinded to clinical information.
33 udy purposes by two nuclear radiologists who
were blinded to clinical outcome.
34 e of 0 to 5 by one of three pathologists who
were blinded to clinical outcome; a score >/= 2 (membran
35 Two radiologists who
were blinded to clinical symptoms independently reviewed
36 Automated pupillometry results
were blinded to clinicians involved in patient care.
37 erson administering the decision-making test
were blinded to CO2 level.
38 ed CAD algorithm and by two radiologists who
were blinded to colonoscopy findings.
39 years was examined by expert anatomists who
were blinded to diagnostic status.
40 The investigators
were blinded to each manuscript's author and institution
41 Investigators
were blinded to each other's assessments and as to wheth
42 currence by two experienced radiologists who
were blinded to each other's interpretation but not to c
43 nts were carried out by two radiologists who
were blinded to each other's measurements.
44 er curves independently by investigators who
were blinded to each other's results.
45 Assessors
were blinded to each other's scores during observations.
46 the occupational history by 2 reviewers who
were blinded to each subject's disease status.
47 ge) criteria and assigned by researchers who
were blinded to experimental measurements.
48 l record review by 2 gastroenterologists who
were blinded to exposure information.
49 Subjects
were blinded to field strength.
50 Observers
were blinded to final patient groupings.
51 medical records and/or phone interviews and
was blinded to genetic test results.
52 Two readers, who
were blinded to genetic status, independently assessed c
53 A tester who
was blinded to group assignment made group comparisons a
54 tistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors
were blinded to group allocation and interventionists bl
55 stigators, participants, and study personnel
were blinded to group allocation and remained blinded un
56 Observers
were blinded to group allocation for the measurement of
57 sthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams
were blinded to group allocation.
58 Outcome assessors and PR therapists
were blinded to group allocation.
59 Pathologists
were blinded to group allocation.
60 latives (343 case and 300 control relatives)
were blinded to group and evaluated by psychiatrists and
61 Researchers
were blinded to group assignment at time of screening.
62 Patients and observer
were blinded to group assignment.
63 Patients and the outcome assessment team
were blinded to group assignment.
64 , but not participants and interventionists,
were blinded to group assignment.
65 Participants, but not investigators,
were blinded to group assignment.
66 Participants, clinicians, and investigators
were blinded to group assignment.
67 sts and hepatologists that assessed outcomes
were blinded to group assignments.
68 s were the consensus of two radiologists who
were blinded to histopathologic findings.
69 Readers
were blinded to histopathology results during prospectiv
70 All analyses
were blinded to imaging and clinical results.
71 atment for H&E-negative SLNs, and clinicians
were blinded to immunohistochemistry results.
72 All participants and investigators
were blinded to individual CAG analysis.
73 Outcome assessors and adjudicators
were blinded to intervention assignment.
74 ers, outcome adjudicators, and data analysts
were blinded to interventions.
75 Participants and acupuncturists
were blinded to laser and sham laser acupuncture.
76 were assessed by physician investigators who
were blinded to management strategy.
77 Diagnostic assessments
were blinded to mass spectrometry results.
78 Participants
were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to ma
79 All providers
were blinded to MDCT results.
80 separate institution by an MR physicist who
was blinded to MR imaging results.
81 he study, where both patients and physicians
were blinded to MR results, unless this information was
82 ken at the discretion of the clinicians, who
were blinded to noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring values
83 The sonographers
were blinded to on-screen measurements and the subject's
84 ; and only 53% mentioned that BMB evaluation
was blinded to other factors of interest.
85 g a four-point assessment scale, and readers
were blinded to other test results.
86 Matching
was blinded to outcome events.
87 Investigators classifying TTEs
were blinded to participant groupings.
88 rventions, treatment allocation often cannot
be blinded to participants, study staff, or providers.
89 c MR imaging were scored by five readers who
were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly
90 results were interpreted at each site, which
were blinded to pathological results.
91 d by a different experienced radiologist who
was blinded to patient history and the images and interp
92 Three faculty CT radiologists who
were blinded to patient clinical data and outcome indepe
93 Two readers who
were blinded to patient data independently recorded thei
94 images were reviewed by two radiologists who
were blinded to patient history and results of imaging s
95 Two radiologists
were blinded to patient identification but were informed
96 usion scans were analyzed by 2 observers who
were blinded to patient identity and test sequence; scan
97 Three independent readers who
were blinded to patient identity interpreted the scans i
98 Radiologists
were blinded to patient names, and patient and group ord
99 Radiologists
were blinded to patient names, and patient order was ran
100 pendently interpreted by three observers who
were blinded to patient names.
101 fied retrospectively by two radiologists who
were blinded to patient outcome.
102 rements by >/=2 individuals per case/control
were blinded to patient status.
103 The hematopathologist, who
was blinded to patients' molecular status, reviewed the
104 valuation committee assessing trial outcomes
was blinded to patients' treatment assignments.
105 PASI), and personnel analyzing serum samples
were blinded to patients' PASI.
106 Screening results
were blinded to patients, staff, and researchers.
107 Outcome coders
were blinded to physician performance.
108 All participants and study staff
were blinded to polyunsaturated fatty acid or placebo as
109 d by repeated FTA-ABS testing (technologists
were blinded to previous RPR results) and patient chart
110 The technologists
were blinded to prior identification results.
111 Physicians performing follow-up assessments
were blinded to QMRA flow status.
112 regivers, and those assessing blood pressure
were blinded to randomisation assignments.
113 conducting screening and outcome procedures
were blinded to randomization status.
114 eening, intervention, and outcome procedures
were blinded to randomization status.
115 search personnel except the database manager
were blinded to randomization.
116 Surgeons
were blinded to randomized treatment and no specific sur
117 The operator
was blinded to results of other investigations.
118 diologists independently reviewed images and
were blinded to results of biopsy.
119 Reviewers of angiography
were blinded to results of physiological testing.
120 Women and clinicians
were blinded to results unless cervical shortening less
121 immunochemical staining; treating clinicians
were blinded to results.
122 ed to screening results, and the NP examiner
was blinded to screening and HIV status.
123 Participants
were blinded to screening results, and the NP examiner w
124 Outcome surveyors and patients
were blinded to study group allocation.
125 cial software by two independent readers who
were blinded to study group and the timing of the scan a
126 , providers, and those who assessed outcomes
were blinded to study group assignment.
127 Research staff doing follow-up
were blinded to study group assignment.
128 open label, but the patients and clinicians
were blinded to study group assignment.
129 Investigators
were blinded to study group, but participants were not.
130 Health-care and laboratory personnel
were blinded to study group.
131 Participants
were blinded to study hypothesis.
132 for analysis were selected by reviewers who
were blinded to study results.
133 ssessed independently by 2 investigators who
were blinded to study results.
134 Readers
were blinded to subject identity, and films were read in
135 Assessors
were blinded to symptom status.
136 Assessors
were blinded to symptom status.
137 itonin results (procalcitonin group) and one
being blinded to the procalcitonin results (control grou
138 reviewed by a breast imaging specialist who
was blinded to the CHD status.
139 patient were reviewed by a pathologist, who
was blinded to the clinical data.
140 levels were obtained by one radiologist, who
was blinded to the final histologic diagnosis, by using
141 enchyma) by a pediatric neuroradiologist who
was blinded to the Fio(2) level.
142 d presence of cysts by a single assessor who
was blinded to the gestational group and perinatal cours
143 ation were extracted by 2 authors, 1 of whom
was blinded to the journal, institution, and author of e
144 diographs were read by a single observer who
was blinded to the pairing and zygosity of the twins.
145 aire, and a urologist or urogynecologist who
was blinded to the responses performed the extended eval
146 e was performed by an orthopedic surgeon who
was blinded to the results of T2* mapping.
147 A metrologist who
was blinded to the treatment allocation performed assess
148 Physicians
were blinded to the actual BNP level and subsequent BNP
149 The technologist and volunteer
were blinded to the agent.
150 Patients and observers
were blinded to the assignments.
151 All imaging observers
were blinded to the biopsy results, and all hepatopathol
152 Clinicians
were blinded to the BNP result, and confirmation of dise
153 cCTA results because patients and caregivers
were blinded to the cCTA results.
154 ostprocessing reformations; the radiologists
were blinded to the clinical and ERP data.
155 scored independently by 2 expert readers who
were blinded to the clinical characteristics of the pati
156 europathologists, respectively, both of whom
were blinded to the clinical data.
157 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the clinical findings retrospectively ev
158 vely reviewed by two independent readers who
were blinded to the clinical history and results of the
159 The radiologists
were blinded to the clinical information for each patien
160 Additionally, three radiologists who
were blinded to the clinical, US, and surgical data retr
161 Three independent observers who
were blinded to the compression scheme evaluated these i
162 Two Mohs surgeons and a Mohs fellow, who
were blinded to the correlating gold standard frozen sec
163 pendently assessed by three radiologists who
were blinded to the CT technique used.
164 ology fellow and senior neuroradiologist who
were blinded to the diagnoses selected a region of inter
165 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the diagnosis independently reviewed the
166 rformed individually by six radiologists who
were blinded to the diagnosis, including two faculty abd
167 nterpreting the gas exchange evidence of EIS
were blinded to the echocardiographic readings.
168 Investigators
were blinded to the FDG-PET results unless they revealed
169 tative contrast-enhanced US examinations and
were blinded to the final diagnoses.
170 o abdominal imaging attending physicians who
were blinded to the final results.
171 ission values, measured by microscopists who
were blinded to the group allocations.
172 Participants, field staff and data analysts
were blinded to the group assignment until data analysis
173 Neither the family nor investigators
were blinded to the group assignment.
174 Laboratory personnel
were blinded to the group identity of the samples.
175 Patients, clinicians, and investigators
were blinded to the groups.
176 Reviewers who
were blinded to the histologic diagnoses correctly diagn
177 ndent observers (neuroradiology fellows) who
were blinded to the histopathologic diagnosis performed
178 nalyzed by two experienced radiologists, who
were blinded to the histopathologic findings.
179 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the image acquisition technique semiquan
180 e biopsy results, and all hepatopathologists
were blinded to the imaging results.
181 ocardiographers and 2 cardiology fellows who
were blinded to the indication for the study and TTE res
182 Investigators
were blinded to the interpretation modality during outco
183 Participants
were blinded to the interpretations of other study patho
184 Outcome assessors
were blinded to the intervention assignment.
185 The physicians
were blinded to the IOS measurements and assessed asthma
186 Physicians who
were blinded to the IOS measurements assessed asthma con
187 They
were blinded to the laterality of microneedle and sham r
188 Volunteers
were blinded to the LESP, which was randomly varied.
189 viewed independently by two radiologists who
were blinded to the location and presence of renal calcu
190 Pathologists used standardized reporting and
were blinded to the method of surgery.
191 h the patient and the principal investigator
were blinded to the nature of surgery.
192 nd Data System lexicon by breast imagers who
were blinded to the ODRS.
193 server performance experiments in which they
were blinded to the order of image acquisition in relati
194 were reviewed by two echocardiographers who
were blinded to the order of image acquisition.
195 y 3 experienced and trained radiologists who
were blinded to the order of the visits.
196 Two observers who
were blinded to the original scan interpretations simult
197 Readers
were blinded to the participant's therapy, APOE epsilon4
198 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the pathologic results independently ass
199 Three readers, who
were blinded to the pathologic results, retrospectively
200 valuated by two specialized radiologists who
were blinded to the patient dose groups.
201 predefined criteria by two radiologists who
were blinded to the patient's conversion status.
202 Both the endoscopist and pathologist
were blinded to the patient's diagnosis.
203 were independently scored by 2 observers who
were blinded to the patient's diagnosis.
204 scored independently by 3 arthroscopists who
were blinded to the patient's identity and clinical deta
205 n the first two readings, when the observers
were blinded to the primary diagnosis of the subject, th
206 Actors and patients
were blinded to the purpose of the study.
207 Pathologists interpreting the biopsy results
were blinded to the randomization.
208 Operators
were blinded to the real-time CF data.
209 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the reconstruction algorithms used quali
210 Patients
were blinded to the result of their randomization for 6
211 s were performed by different clinicians who
were blinded to the results obtained with the other moda
212 ently by two nuclear medicine physicians who
were blinded to the results of other localization studie
213 dently interpreted by three radiologists who
were blinded to the results of portography.
214 ice by each of two independent observers who
were blinded to the results of RV mass measurement at au
215 chocardiographer and electrophysiologist who
were blinded to the results of TEE.
216 icated by two independent cardiologists, who
were blinded to the results of the B-type natriuretic pe
217 yzed separately by two neuroradiologists who
were blinded to the side of the face with symptoms.
218 ted medical records and made follow-up calls
were blinded to the SORT algorithm's assessment of the c
219 Both participants and study personnel
were blinded to the specific generic products selected.
220 ss-analysis and to ensure that investigators
were blinded to the status of the infants.
221 nal interviews were conducted by nurses, who
were blinded to the study hypothesis, regarding medicati
222 ommittee consisting of expert physicians who
were blinded to the study treatment subclassified causes
223 independent, trained research assistants who
were blinded to the test results.
224 Patients and physicians
were blinded to the test results.
225 images from both examinations by readers who
were blinded to the time sequence.
226 t pelvic denervation (no LUNA); participants
were blinded to the treatment allocation.
227 Participants, study staff, and investigators
were blinded to the treatment allocation.
228 ring physicians, investigators, and patients
were blinded to the treatment assignment until after the
229 ubsequently assumed the care of the patients
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
230 ubsequently assumed the care of the patients
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
231 All study personnel
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
232 Patients and investigators
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
233 Patients and staff
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
234 Interviewers
were blinded to the treatment condition.
235 Patients and investigators
were blinded to the treatment group.
236 Patients and assessors of outcome
were blinded to the treatment-group assignment.
237 Patients, investigators, and sponsors
were blinded to the treatment.
238 Reviewers
were blinded to the type of prosthetic valve and the dem
239 Investigators
were blinded to the videos observed by the patient.
240 e circumstances in which participants cannot
be blinded to their treatment.
241 mples were randomized, and the investigators
were blinded to their genetic status.
242 ated randomization sequence, and researchers
were blinded to their grouping.
243 Readers
were blinded to their original scores, and then they res
244 Patients
were blinded to therapy during follow-up period and reas
245 A technician who
was blinded to treatment allocation undertook compressio
246 trial was open label but outcome assessment
was blinded to treatment assignment.
247 The assessor
was blinded to treatment condition assignment.
248 iew of data from patients who withdrew early
was blinded to treatment.
249 involved in study conduct and data analyses
were blinded to treatment allocation.
250 equence was computer-generated, and patients
were blinded to treatment allocation.
251 Both participants and study personnel
were blinded to treatment allocation.
252 Investigators, patients, and the funder
were blinded to treatment allocation.
253 a were collected every 6 months by staff who
were blinded to treatment assignment
254 Research assistants who
were blinded to treatment assignment conducted outcome a
255 roviders, study personnel, and statisticians
were blinded to treatment assignment.
256 Interviewers assessing outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
257 ng physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
258 Clinical raters
were blinded to treatment assignment.
259 The study personnel who assessed outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
260 earch nurses, and persons assessing outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
261 Therapists who undertook patient assessments
were blinded to treatment assignment.
262 All investigators
were blinded to treatment assignment.
263 Patients, providers, and researchers
were blinded to treatment assignment.
264 Outcome assessors
were blinded to treatment assignment.
265 assessing the participants during follow-up
were blinded to treatment assignment.
266 roviders, researchers, and outcome assessors
were blinded to treatment assignment.
267 Participants and follow-up study personnel
were blinded to treatment assignments.
268 ts, data collection staff, and data analysts
were blinded to treatment group.
269 pt pharmacists), investigators, and patients
were blinded to treatment group.
270 Patients and investigators
were blinded to treatment status.
271 estigators, participants, and scar assessors
were blinded to treatment.
272 y adjudicators but not other study personnel
were blinded to trial allocation.
273 Patients and outcome assessors
were blinded to unit assignment; outcome assessors may h
274 Pathology testing
was blinded to urine assay results.
275 Clinicians
were blinded to whether parents had received photography
276 Participants and examiners
were blinded to whether stimulation was active or not, a
277 Clinicians
were blinded to Xpert results.