Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 8, Number 1—January 2002
Research

Participant Blinding and Gastrointestinal Illness in a Randomized, Controlled Trial of an In-Home Drinking Water Intervention

John M. Colford*†Comments to Author , Judy R. Rees*†, Timothy J. Wade*†, Asheena Khalakdina*†, Joan F. Hilton‡, Isaac J. Ergas*, Susan Burns*, Anne Benker*, Catherine Ma, Cliff Bowen, Daniel C. Mills, Duc J. Vugia, Dennis D. Juranek¶, and Deborah A. Levy¶
Author affiliations: *University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA; †California Emerging Infections Program, Berkeley, California, USA; ‡University of California San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA §California Department of Health Services, Berkeley, California, USA; ¶Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA;

Main Article

Table 4

Rates of highly credible gastrointestinal illness (HCGI) episodes and incidence rate ratios (IRR)a for all respondents and index respondents, by respondent guess about device assignment, week 16,b Pilot Water Evaluation Trial

Guess about device assignment, 16 weeks All respondents Index respondents
Sham device Active device Sham device Active device
Guess = “Sham”
Episodes of HCGI 4 4 3 1
Person-time (person-years) 3 3 1 1
No. of respondents 12 12 5 5
Rate (95% CI) 1.2 (0.3–4.8) 1.1 (0.5–2.7) 2.1 (0.7–6.6) 0.7 (0.1–4.8)
IRR for sham vs. active (95% CI) 1.0 (0.2–5.4) 3.16 (0.3–30.4)
Guess = “Active”
Episodes of HCGI 30 30 6 15
Person-time (person-years) 8 12 4 5
No. of respondents 30 43 13 19
Rate (95% CI) 3.6 (2.1–6.3) 2.5 (1.3–4.5) 1.6 (0.7–3.6) 2.8 (1.7–4.6)
IRR for sham vs. active (95% CI) 1.5 (0.7–3.3) 0.6 (0.2–1.5)
Guess = “Don’t know”
Episodes of HCGI 18 15 10 6
Person-time (person-years) 8 6 4 3
No. of respondents 27 21 13 9
Rate (95% CI) 2.4 (1.2–4.6) 2.5 (1.1–5.5) 2.7 (1.5–5.1) 2.3 (1.0–5.2)
IRR for sham vs.active (95% CI) 1.0 (0.3–2.7) 1.2 (0.4–3.3)
All guesses
Episodes of HCGI 52 49 19 22
Person-time (person-years) 19 22 9 9
No. of respondents 69 76 31 33
Rate (95% CI) 2.7 (1.7–4.3) 2.2 (1.5–3.4) 2.2 (1.4–3.4) 2.3 (1.5–3.5)
IRR for sham vs.active (95% CI) 1.2 (0.6–2.2) 0.9 (0.5–1.7)
No guess given
Episodes of HCGI 12 5 5 2
Person-time (person-years) 4 2 1 1
No. of respondents 21 13 8 5
Rate (95% CI) 3.3 (1.1–9.7) 2.7 (1.1–6.9) 5.4 (2.6–11.3) 3.0 (0.7–11.8)
IRR for sham vs. active (95% CI) 1.2 (0.3–5.1) 1.8 (0.4–8.8)

aRates of HCGI and IRR were calculated by Poisson regression and were adjusted for the intrahousehold correlation introduced by the sampling design.

bRespondents for the blinding questionnaires were all aged >12 years.

Main Article

Page created: July 14, 2010
Page updated: July 14, 2010
Page reviewed: July 14, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external