Bias was reduced in an open-label trial through the removal of subjective elements from the outcome definition.

[1]  T. Walsh,et al.  Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[2]  B. Kahan,et al.  Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials , 2015, PloS one.

[3]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Subjective and objective outcomes in randomized clinical trials: definitions differed in methods publications and were often absent from trial reports. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  C. Doré,et al.  Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials , 2014, Trials.

[5]  J. Hilden,et al.  Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. , 2014, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  Tim P Morris,et al.  The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies , 2014, Trials.

[7]  Tim P Morris,et al.  Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[8]  C. Doré,et al.  Update on the transfusion in gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER) trial: statistical analysis plan for a cluster-randomised feasibility trial , 2013, Trials.

[9]  T. Walsh,et al.  Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Rationale and Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Feasibility Trial , 2013, Transfusion medicine reviews.

[10]  J. Hilden,et al.  Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors , 2013, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[11]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  S. Travis,et al.  Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: patient characteristics, diagnoses and outcomes in the 2007 UK audit , 2011, Gut.

[14]  E. Kuipers,et al.  Methodology for Randomized Trials of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Recommendations From an International Consensus Conference , 2010, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[15]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  S. Willich,et al.  The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain , 2007, PAIN.

[17]  R. Marti,et al.  Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  K. Schulz,et al.  Surrogate end points in clinical research: hazardous to your health. , 2005, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  V Torri,et al.  Beware of Surrogate Outcome Measures , 1996, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  J. Noseworthy,et al.  The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo‐controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial , 1994, Neurology.

[21]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .