1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of sodium bicarbonate ingestion strategies for protecting blinding

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO 3) is a widely researched ergogenic aid, but the optimal blinding strategy during randomised placebo-controlled trials is unknown. In this multi-study project, we aimed to determine the most efficacious ingestion strategy for blinding NaHCO 3 research. During study one, 16 physically active adults tasted 0.3 g kg −1 body mass NaHCO 3 or 0.03 g kg −1 body mass sodium chloride placebo treatments given in different flavour (orange, blackcurrant) and temperature (chilled, room temperature) solutions. They were required to guess which treatment they had received. During study two, 12 recreational athletes performed time-to-exhaustion (TTE) cycling trials (familiarisation, four experimental). Using a randomised, double-blind design, participants consumed 0.3 g kg −1 body mass NaHCO 3 or a placebo in 5 mL kg −1 body mass chilled orange squash/water solutions or capsules and indicated what they believed they had received immediately after consumption, pre-TTE and post-TTE. In study one, NaHCO 3 prepared in chilled orange squash resulted in the most unsure ratings (44%). In study two, giving NaHCO 3 in capsules resulted in more unsure ratings than in solution after consumption (92 vs 33%), pre-TTE (67 vs. 17%) and post-TTE (50 vs. 17%). Administering NaHCO 3 in capsules was the most efficacious blinding strategy which provides important implications for researchers conducting randomised placebo-controlled trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          User's guide to correlation coefficients

          When writing a manuscript, we often use words such as perfect, strong, good or weak to name the strength of the relationship between variables. However, it is unclear where a good relationship turns into a strong one. The same strength of r is named differently by several researchers. Therefore, there is an absolute necessity to explicitly report the strength and direction of r while reporting correlation coefficients in manuscripts. This article aims to familiarize medical readers with several different correlation coefficients reported in medical manuscripts, clarify confounding aspects and summarize the naming practices for the strength of correlation coefficients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.

            Blinding embodies a rich history spanning over two centuries. Most researchers worldwide understand blinding terminology, but confusion lurks beyond a general comprehension. Terms such as single blind, double blind, and triple blind mean different things to different people. Moreover, many medical researchers confuse blinding with allocation concealment. Such confusion indicates misunderstandings of both. The term blinding refers to keeping trial participants, investigators (usually health-care providers), or assessors (those collecting outcome data) unaware of the assigned intervention, so that they will not be influenced by that knowledge. Blinding usually reduces differential assessment of outcomes (information bias), but can also improve compliance and retention of trial participants while reducing biased supplemental care or treatment (sometimes called co-intervention). Many investigators and readers naïvely consider a randomised trial as high quality simply because it is double blind, as if double-blinding is the sine qua non of a randomised controlled trial. Although double blinding (blinding investigators, participants, and outcome assessors) indicates a strong design, trials that are not double blinded should not automatically be deemed inferior. Rather than solely relying on terminology like double blinding, researchers should explicitly state who was blinded, and how. We recommend placing greater credence in results when investigators at least blind outcome assessments, except with objective outcomes, such as death, which leave little room for bias. If investigators properly report their blinding efforts, readers can judge them. Unfortunately, many articles do not contain proper reporting. If an article claims blinding without any accompanying clarification, readers should remain sceptical about its effect on bias reduction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              IOC Consensus Statement: Dietary Supplements and the High-Performance Athlete

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lewis.gough@bcu.ac.uk
                Journal
                Eur J Appl Physiol
                Eur J Appl Physiol
                European Journal of Applied Physiology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1439-6319
                1439-6327
                2 September 2022
                2 September 2022
                2022
                : 122
                : 12
                : 2555-2563
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.127050.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0249 951X, School of Psychology and Life Sciences, , Canterbury Christ Church University, ; Canterbury, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.5884.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0303 540X, Sport and Physical Activity Research Centre, College of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, , Sheffield Hallam University, ; Sheffield, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.19822.30, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 2449, Human Performance and Health Research Group, Centre for Life and Sport Sciences, , Birmingham City University, ; Birmingham, UK
                Author notes

                Communicated by Michael I Lindinger.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-7559
                Article
                5031
                10.1007/s00421-022-05031-0
                9613539
                36053364
                b4852dfe-e0f0-415d-bbb4-d4c714e1af8a
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 30 April 2022
                : 11 August 2022
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

                Anatomy & Physiology
                dietary supplements,double-blind,sports nutrition,research methods
                Anatomy & Physiology
                dietary supplements, double-blind, sports nutrition, research methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article