Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Sham radiation in clinical trials assessing radiotherapy for exudative age-related macular degeneration

  • Dennis M. Marcus(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Matthew W. Camp
    ,
  • W. Chris Sheils
    ,
  • Sandra B. McIntosh
    ,
  • Diane B. Leibach
    ,
  • Maribeth H Johnson
*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness of sham radiation treatments in masking patients to their randomization group in the Radiation of Age- Related Macular Degeneration (ROARMD) Study. Methods: Patients with choroidal neovascularization complicating age-related macular degeneration were randomized to a treatment (RAD) group that received external beam irradiation (seven treatment sessions) or to a control (SHAM) group that received sham radiation (one sham treatment session). During a telephone survey, 62 of 73 randomized patients responded to the following questions: Do you think you received radiation? Why do you feel that way? Did the vision in your study eye women after enrollment? Results: Eighty-one percent of the RAD group and 59% of the SHAM group thought that they had received radiation. In patients who thought that their vision had stabilized or improved, 82% thought that they had received radiation. In patients who thought that their vision was worse, only 39% thought that they had received radiation. In 54% of patients, subjective perception of vision influenced their guess as to whether they received radiation. Conclusions: Subjective patient perception of visual outcome was the most influential variable for masking. Variation between radiation treatment and sham session techniques, such as equipment used and duration of treatments, played a lesser role in the masking of patients. Seven treatment days correlated with a higher number of patients who thought that they had received radiation. Although our procedures do not strictly mask the two groups, one sham radiation session was effective in keeping patients guessing their randomization group.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 525-530 (6 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Retina (Volume 19, Issue 6)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 01/01/1999

Publication status

Published - 01/01/1999

ISSN

0275-004X

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 0033512396
  • PubMed: 10606453

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
citations
7
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.14
Fractional count
6
Fractional count
0.86
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
FWCI
0.23
SciVal
Author count
7
SciVal
Paper percentile
51

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
9
Captures
6