How blind is blind? Assessment of patient and doctor medication guesses in a placebo-controlled trial of imipramine and phenelzine.

Author: HarrisonW, KleinD F, MarkowitzJ S, McGrathP, QuitkinF M, RabkinJ G, StewartJ

Paper Details 
Original Abstract of the Article :
The purpose of the double blind is to protect the internal validity of a clinical trial by preventing knowledge of treatment conditions from influencing outcome or its assessment. We studied medication guesses of 137 depressed patients and/or their doctors at the end of a 6-week randomized trial of ...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(86)90094-6

データ提供:米国国立医学図書館(NLM)

How Blind is Blind? Assessing Medication Guesses in a Placebo-Controlled Trial

Placebo-controlled trials are a cornerstone of medical research, designed to ensure that observed effects are due to the treatment and not simply expectations or other confounding factors. This study investigated the accuracy of patient and doctor medication guesses in a placebo-controlled trial of imipramine and phenelzine for depression. The researchers found that a significant proportion of patients and doctors could correctly distinguish between placebo and active medication, suggesting that some cues, beyond the intended blinding, might be present. This highlights the potential for biases in clinical trials and emphasizes the importance of meticulous blinding procedures.

The Challenge of Blinding in Clinical Trials

The study highlights the inherent challenge of achieving perfect blinding in clinical trials. Imagine a camel trying to camouflage itself in a desert landscape; it's difficult to completely blend in, even with the best efforts. Similarly, even with the most rigorous blinding techniques, some clues might unintentionally reveal treatment conditions, potentially influencing participant and observer expectations. This underscores the importance of ongoing efforts to improve blinding methods and minimize potential bias.

The Pursuit of Scientific Integrity

The study emphasizes the importance of scientific integrity in clinical research. It serves as a reminder that even seemingly robust research methods can be susceptible to subtle biases. Just as a desert traveler needs to be vigilant and aware of potential hazards, researchers need to be mindful of potential biases in their studies and strive to minimize their impact. By upholding the principles of scientific integrity, we can ensure that research findings are reliable and contribute meaningfully to advancing medical knowledge.

Dr.Camel's Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the complex challenges of blinding in clinical trials, demonstrating that achieving perfect blinding is a difficult, but essential, goal. It underscores the importance of continued research to refine methods and minimize potential bias, ultimately contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of effective treatments.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 1986-12-31
  2. Date Revised 2019-08-24
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

3538107

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

10.1016/0165-1781(86)90094-6

Related Literature

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.