1 The two radiologists
were blinded to all clinical information, including path
2 Evaluators of cardiac MRI studies
were blinded to all clinical information.
3 wed by gastrointestinal cytopathologists who
were blinded to all data.
4 uantitatively assessed by two physicians who
were blinded to all other data.
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 Patients and postoperative providers
were blinded to allocation.
9 Measurement staff
were blinded to allocation.
10 Parents and staff
were blinded to allocation.
11 of a pulley lesion by three radiologists who
were blinded to arthroscopic results.
12 Providers
were blinded to automated defibrillator waveform.
13 randomized and assigned to a radiologist who
was blinded to biopsy results for retrospective assessme
14 Physicians
were blinded to BNP levels and asked to give their proba
15 Two independent cardiologists
were blinded to BNP levels and asked to review the data
16 Patients and physicians
were blinded to BNP levels.
17 Echocardiographers and clinicians
were blinded to BNP levels.
18 logists making the assessment of LV function
were blinded to BNP levels.
19 Final endoscopic diagnoses
were blinded to calprotectin values.
20 ther a study arm in which the endoscopy team
was blinded to capnography or an open arm in which the e
21 A reader who
was blinded to case status and year of mammogram perform
22 Patients and staff
were blinded to categorization.
23 readers with expertise in spine imaging, who
were blinded to center and patient identification inform
24 During the ablation procedure, the operator
was blinded to CF information.
25 Confocal evaluation
was blinded to clinical and dermoscopic diagnosis.
26 The CMR investigators
were blinded to clinical and genetic data.
27 ospectively by two thoracic radiologists who
were blinded to clinical and pathologic data.
28 The radiologist and pathologist
were blinded to clinical and pathology/imaging data, res
29 Investigators
were blinded to clinical details except for 2 of 4 dupli
30 The observers
were blinded to clinical history, and the two reviews to
31 RI, and images were read by four readers who
were blinded to clinical information.
32 ensus by two pediatric neuroradiologists who
were blinded to clinical information.
33 line and interim PET scans independently and
were blinded to clinical information.
34 re reviewed independently by two readers who
were blinded to clinical information.
35 dependently assessed by two radiologists who
were blinded to clinical information.
36 e of 0 to 5 by one of three pathologists who
were blinded to clinical outcome; a score >/= 2 (membran
37 Two radiologists who
were blinded to clinical symptoms independently reviewed
38 Automated pupillometry results
were blinded to clinicians involved in patient care.
39 erson administering the decision-making test
were blinded to CO2 level.
40 ed CAD algorithm and by two radiologists who
were blinded to colonoscopy findings.
41 years was examined by expert anatomists who
were blinded to diagnostic status.
42 Surgeons
were blinded to diet assignment.
43 The investigators
were blinded to DM status.
44 udy personnel performing laboratory analyses
were blinded to each condition.
45 Investigators
were blinded to each other's assessments and as to wheth
46 currence by two experienced radiologists who
were blinded to each other's interpretation but not to c
47 nts were carried out by two radiologists who
were blinded to each other's measurements.
48 er curves independently by investigators who
were blinded to each other's results.
49 Assessors
were blinded to each other's scores during observations.
50 the occupational history by 2 reviewers who
were blinded to each subject's disease status.
51 t only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions
be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations.
52 ge) criteria and assigned by researchers who
were blinded to experimental measurements.
53 l record review by 2 gastroenterologists who
were blinded to exposure information.
54 Subjects
were blinded to field strength.
55 Observers
were blinded to final patient groupings.
56 medical records and/or phone interviews and
was blinded to genetic test results.
57 Two readers, who
were blinded to genetic status, independently assessed c
58 A tester who
was blinded to group assignment made group comparisons a
59 tistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors
were blinded to group allocation and interventionists bl
60 stigators, participants, and study personnel
were blinded to group allocation and remained blinded un
61 Observers
were blinded to group allocation for the measurement of
62 Pathologists
were blinded to group allocation.
63 Neither participants nor the study team
were blinded to group allocation.
64 sthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams
were blinded to group allocation.
65 Outcomes assessors
were blinded to group allocation.
66 Outcome assessors and PR therapists
were blinded to group allocation.
67 latives (343 case and 300 control relatives)
were blinded to group and evaluated by psychiatrists and
68 Researchers
were blinded to group assignment at time of screening.
69 Patients and observer
were blinded to group assignment.
70 , but not participants and interventionists,
were blinded to group assignment.
71 Data collectors measuring outcomes
were blinded to group assignment.
72 Participants, clinicians, and investigators
were blinded to group assignment.
73 Patients and the outcome assessment team
were blinded to group assignment.
74 Participants and staff
were blinded to group assignment.
75 Participants, but not investigators,
were blinded to group assignment.
76 sts and hepatologists that assessed outcomes
were blinded to group assignments.
77 s were the consensus of two radiologists who
were blinded to histopathologic findings.
78 Readers
were blinded to histopathology results during prospectiv
79 All analyses
were blinded to imaging and clinical results.
80 atment for H&E-negative SLNs, and clinicians
were blinded to immunohistochemistry results.
81 All participants and investigators
were blinded to individual CAG analysis.
82 ed each examination result prospectively and
were blinded to interpretations of findings with the oth
83 Outcome assessors and adjudicators
were blinded to intervention assignment.
84 ers, outcome adjudicators, and data analysts
were blinded to interventions.
85 Participants and acupuncturists
were blinded to laser and sham laser acupuncture.
86 were assessed by physician investigators who
were blinded to management strategy.
87 Diagnostic assessments
were blinded to mass spectrometry results.
88 Participants
were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to ma
89 All providers
were blinded to MDCT results.
90 separate institution by an MR physicist who
was blinded to MR imaging results.
91 he study, where both patients and physicians
were blinded to MR results, unless this information was
92 ken at the discretion of the clinicians, who
were blinded to noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring values
93 The sonographers
were blinded to on-screen measurements and the subject's
94 ; and only 53% mentioned that BMB evaluation
was blinded to other factors of interest.
95 g a four-point assessment scale, and readers
were blinded to other test results.
96 Matching
was blinded to outcome events.
97 Investigators classifying TTEs
were blinded to participant groupings.
98 rventions, treatment allocation often cannot
be blinded to participants, study staff, or providers.
99 c MR imaging were scored by five readers who
were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly
100 results were interpreted at each site, which
were blinded to pathological results.
101 d by a different experienced radiologist who
was blinded to patient history and the images and interp
102 Three faculty CT radiologists who
were blinded to patient clinical data and outcome indepe
103 Two readers who
were blinded to patient data independently recorded thei
104 images were reviewed by two radiologists who
were blinded to patient history and results of imaging s
105 Two radiologists
were blinded to patient identification but were informed
106 usion scans were analyzed by 2 observers who
were blinded to patient identity and test sequence; scan
107 Three independent readers who
were blinded to patient identity interpreted the scans i
108 Radiologists
were blinded to patient names, and patient and group ord
109 Radiologists
were blinded to patient names, and patient order was ran
110 pendently interpreted by three observers who
were blinded to patient names.
111 fied retrospectively by two radiologists who
were blinded to patient outcome.
112 rements by >/=2 individuals per case/control
were blinded to patient status.
113 The hematopathologist, who
was blinded to patients' molecular status, reviewed the
114 valuation committee assessing trial outcomes
was blinded to patients' treatment assignments.
115 PASI), and personnel analyzing serum samples
were blinded to patients' PASI.
116 Screening results
were blinded to patients, staff, and researchers.
117 Outcome coders
were blinded to physician performance.
118 All participants and study staff
were blinded to polyunsaturated fatty acid or placebo as
119 ial/ethnic and religious minority categories
were blinded to preserve anonymity and we accounted for
120 d by repeated FTA-ABS testing (technologists
were blinded to previous RPR results) and patient chart
121 The technologists
were blinded to prior identification results.
122 Physicians performing follow-up assessments
were blinded to QMRA flow status.
123 regivers, and those assessing blood pressure
were blinded to randomisation assignments.
124 Investigators and clusters
were blinded to randomisation until 2 weeks prior to eac
125 Outcome assessment
was blinded to randomization treatment.
126 eening, intervention, and outcome procedures
were blinded to randomization status.
127 conducting screening and outcome procedures
were blinded to randomization status.
128 search personnel except the database manager
were blinded to randomization.
129 Surgeons
were blinded to randomized treatment and no specific sur
130 The operator
was blinded to results of other investigations.
131 diologists independently reviewed images and
were blinded to results of biopsy.
132 Reviewers of angiography
were blinded to results of physiological testing.
133 Women and clinicians
were blinded to results unless cervical shortening less
134 CT, whole-body MRI, or bone scintigraphy and
were blinded to results with the other modalities.
135 immunochemical staining; treating clinicians
were blinded to results.
136 ed to screening results, and the NP examiner
was blinded to screening and HIV status.
137 Participants
were blinded to screening results, and the NP examiner w
138 cial software by two independent readers who
were blinded to study group and the timing of the scan a
139 , providers, and those who assessed outcomes
were blinded to study group assignment.
140 Research staff doing follow-up
were blinded to study group assignment.
141 open label, but the patients and clinicians
were blinded to study group assignment.
142 Investigators
were blinded to study group, but participants were not.
143 Health-care and laboratory personnel
were blinded to study group.
144 Participants
were blinded to study hypothesis.
145 for analysis were selected by reviewers who
were blinded to study results.
146 Investigators and patients
were blinded to study treatment.
147 Readers
were blinded to subject identity, and films were read in
148 Assessors
were blinded to symptom status.
149 cose utilization measured by 2-FDG PET would
be blinded to the potentially substantial role of functi
150 itonin results (procalcitonin group) and one
being blinded to the procalcitonin results (control grou
151 PSG scoring
was blinded to the automatically analyzed WP data.
152 reviewed by a breast imaging specialist who
was blinded to the CHD status.
153 patient were reviewed by a pathologist, who
was blinded to the clinical data.
154 The interventional cardiologist
was blinded to the DE-CMR results.
155 levels were obtained by one radiologist, who
was blinded to the final histologic diagnosis, by using
156 enchyma) by a pediatric neuroradiologist who
was blinded to the Fio(2) level.
157 d presence of cysts by a single assessor who
was blinded to the gestational group and perinatal cours
158 The surgeon
was blinded to the imaging results.
159 in specialist physician (reference standard)
was blinded to the outcome of the initial UNIP evaluatio
160 diographs were read by a single observer who
was blinded to the pairing and zygosity of the twins.
161 ere reviewed by an abdominal radiologist who
was blinded to the pathological results.
162 aire, and a urologist or urogynecologist who
was blinded to the responses performed the extended eval
163 e was performed by an orthopedic surgeon who
was blinded to the results of T2* mapping.
164 A metrologist who
was blinded to the treatment allocation performed assess
165 Physicians
were blinded to the actual BNP level and subsequent BNP
166 The technologist and volunteer
were blinded to the agent.
167 Outcome assessors
were blinded to the allocated treatment.
168 Patients and observers
were blinded to the assignments.
169 All imaging observers
were blinded to the biopsy results, and all hepatopathol
170 Clinicians
were blinded to the BNP result, and confirmation of dise
171 cCTA results because patients and caregivers
were blinded to the cCTA results.
172 ostprocessing reformations; the radiologists
were blinded to the clinical and ERP data.
173 scored independently by 2 expert readers who
were blinded to the clinical characteristics of the pati
174 europathologists, respectively, both of whom
were blinded to the clinical data.
175 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the clinical findings retrospectively ev
176 vely reviewed by two independent readers who
were blinded to the clinical history and results of the
177 The radiologists
were blinded to the clinical information for each patien
178 Additionally, three radiologists who
were blinded to the clinical, US, and surgical data retr
179 Three independent observers who
were blinded to the compression scheme evaluated these i
180 Two Mohs surgeons and a Mohs fellow, who
were blinded to the correlating gold standard frozen sec
181 pendently assessed by three radiologists who
were blinded to the CT technique used.
182 ology fellow and senior neuroradiologist who
were blinded to the diagnoses selected a region of inter
183 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the diagnosis independently reviewed the
184 rformed individually by six radiologists who
were blinded to the diagnosis, including two faculty abd
185 nterpreting the gas exchange evidence of EIS
were blinded to the echocardiographic readings.
186 Investigators
were blinded to the FDG-PET results unless they revealed
187 tative contrast-enhanced US examinations and
were blinded to the final diagnoses.
188 o abdominal imaging attending physicians who
were blinded to the final results.
189 ission values, measured by microscopists who
were blinded to the group allocations.
190 Participants, field staff and data analysts
were blinded to the group assignment until data analysis
191 patients, care providers, and investigators
were blinded to the group assignment.
192 Neither the family nor investigators
were blinded to the group assignment.
193 Laboratory personnel
were blinded to the group identity of the samples.
194 Patients, clinicians, and investigators
were blinded to the groups.
195 Reviewers who
were blinded to the histologic diagnoses correctly diagn
196 ndent observers (neuroradiology fellows) who
were blinded to the histopathologic diagnosis performed
197 nalyzed by two experienced radiologists, who
were blinded to the histopathologic findings.
198 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the image acquisition technique semiquan
199 e biopsy results, and all hepatopathologists
were blinded to the imaging results.
200 ocardiographers and 2 cardiology fellows who
were blinded to the indication for the study and TTE res
201 Investigators
were blinded to the interpretation modality during outco
202 Participants
were blinded to the interpretations of other study patho
203 rticipants nor field or laboratory personnel
were blinded to the intervention arms.
204 Outcome assessors
were blinded to the intervention assignment.
205 The physicians
were blinded to the IOS measurements and assessed asthma
206 Physicians who
were blinded to the IOS measurements assessed asthma con
207 They
were blinded to the laterality of microneedle and sham r
208 viewed independently by two radiologists who
were blinded to the location and presence of renal calcu
209 Pathologists used standardized reporting and
were blinded to the method of surgery.
210 h the patient and the principal investigator
were blinded to the nature of surgery.
211 nd Data System lexicon by breast imagers who
were blinded to the ODRS.
212 were reviewed by two echocardiographers who
were blinded to the order of image acquisition.
213 Two observers who
were blinded to the original scan interpretations simult
214 Readers
were blinded to the participant's therapy, APOE epsilon4
215 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the pathologic results independently ass
216 Three readers, who
were blinded to the pathologic results, retrospectively
217 valuated by two specialized radiologists who
were blinded to the patient dose groups.
218 predefined criteria by two radiologists who
were blinded to the patient's conversion status.
219 Both the endoscopist and pathologist
were blinded to the patient's diagnosis.
220 scored independently by 3 arthroscopists who
were blinded to the patient's identity and clinical deta
221 valuated by two experienced radiologists who
were blinded to the patients, coil and also to each othe
222 n the first two readings, when the observers
were blinded to the primary diagnosis of the subject, th
223 Actors and patients
were blinded to the purpose of the study.
224 Pathologists interpreting the biopsy results
were blinded to the randomization.
225 Operators
were blinded to the real-time CF data.
226 Two radiologists who
were blinded to the reconstruction algorithms used quali
227 Patients
were blinded to the result of their randomization for 6
228 s were performed by different clinicians who
were blinded to the results obtained with the other moda
229 dently interpreted by three radiologists who
were blinded to the results of portography.
230 ice by each of two independent observers who
were blinded to the results of RV mass measurement at au
231 chocardiographer and electrophysiologist who
were blinded to the results of TEE.
232 icated by two independent cardiologists, who
were blinded to the results of the B-type natriuretic pe
233 yzed separately by two neuroradiologists who
were blinded to the side of the face with symptoms.
234 ted medical records and made follow-up calls
were blinded to the SORT algorithm's assessment of the c
235 Both participants and study personnel
were blinded to the specific generic products selected.
236 ss-analysis and to ensure that investigators
were blinded to the status of the infants.
237 nal interviews were conducted by nurses, who
were blinded to the study hypothesis, regarding medicati
238 ommittee consisting of expert physicians who
were blinded to the study treatment subclassified causes
239 nitial assessment with the UNIP (index test)
were blinded to the study, and the pain specialist physi
240 Radiologists
were blinded to the supine chest radiograph findings dur
241 Reviewers
were blinded to the symptomatic status and MRI scans wer
242 Patients and physicians
were blinded to the test results.
243 independent, trained research assistants who
were blinded to the test results.
244 images from both examinations by readers who
were blinded to the time sequence.
245 Echocardiographers at each site
were blinded to the treatment allocation.
246 t pelvic denervation (no LUNA); participants
were blinded to the treatment allocation.
247 Participants, study staff, and investigators
were blinded to the treatment allocation.
248 ring physicians, investigators, and patients
were blinded to the treatment assignment until after the
249 Patients and staff
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
250 ubsequently assumed the care of the patients
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
251 All study personnel
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
252 Patients and investigators
were blinded to the treatment assignment.
253 Interviewers
were blinded to the treatment condition.
254 Patients and investigators
were blinded to the treatment group.
255 Patients and assessors of outcome
were blinded to the treatment-group assignment.
256 Patients, investigators, and sponsors
were blinded to the treatment.
257 Reviewers
were blinded to the type of prosthetic valve and the dem
258 Investigators
were blinded to the videos observed by the patient.
259 e circumstances in which participants cannot
be blinded to their treatment.
260 mples were randomized, and the investigators
were blinded to their genetic status.
261 ated randomization sequence, and researchers
were blinded to their grouping.
262 Readers
were blinded to their original scores, and then they res
263 Patients
were blinded to therapy during follow-up period and reas
264 A technician who
was blinded to treatment allocation undertook compressio
265 trial was open label but outcome assessment
was blinded to treatment assignment.
266 The assessor
was blinded to treatment condition assignment.
267 iew of data from patients who withdrew early
was blinded to treatment.
268 Both participants and researchers
were blinded to treatment allocation in the first 12 wee
269 Investigators, patients, and the funder
were blinded to treatment allocation.
270 involved in study conduct and data analyses
were blinded to treatment allocation.
271 ipants and other clinical and research staff
were blinded to treatment allocation.
272 equence was computer-generated, and patients
were blinded to treatment allocation.
273 The laboratory and bronchoscopy teams
were blinded to treatment allocation.
274 Both participants and study personnel
were blinded to treatment allocation.
275 a were collected every 6 months by staff who
were blinded to treatment assignment
276 Research assistants who
were blinded to treatment assignment conducted outcome a
277 roviders, study personnel, and statisticians
were blinded to treatment assignment.
278 Interviewers assessing outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
279 ng physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
280 Clinical raters
were blinded to treatment assignment.
281 The study personnel who assessed outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
282 earch nurses, and persons assessing outcomes
were blinded to treatment assignment.
283 Therapists who undertook patient assessments
were blinded to treatment assignment.
284 All investigators
were blinded to treatment assignment.
285 assessing the participants during follow-up
were blinded to treatment assignment.
286 roviders, researchers, and outcome assessors
were blinded to treatment assignment.
287 Patients, providers, and researchers
were blinded to treatment assignment.
288 Outcome assessors
were blinded to treatment assignment.
289 Participants and follow-up study personnel
were blinded to treatment assignments.
290 pt pharmacists), investigators, and patients
were blinded to treatment group.
291 ts, data collection staff, and data analysts
were blinded to treatment group.
292 Patients and investigators
were blinded to treatment status.
293 However, lab technicians and data analysts
were blinded to treatment status.
294 estigators, participants, and scar assessors
were blinded to treatment.
295 y adjudicators but not other study personnel
were blinded to trial allocation.
296 Patients and outcome assessors
were blinded to unit assignment; outcome assessors may h
297 Pathology testing
was blinded to urine assay results.
298 Clinicians
were blinded to whether parents had received photography
299 Participants and examiners
were blinded to whether stimulation was active or not, a
300 Clinicians
were blinded to Xpert results.