Turning a blind eye: Authors have blinkered view of blinding
Stephen Senn
Abstract
Stephen Senn
Abstract
EDITOR—Fergusson et al consider a trial to be double blind when the patient, investigators, andoutcome assessors are unaware of the patient's assigned treatment throughout the conduct of the trial.1 They are quite wrong to do so. The whole point of a successful double blind trial is that there should be unblinding through efficacy. That is to say that there should be …
OpenAlex reports 24 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
EDITOR—Fergusson et al consider a trial to be double blind when the patient, investigators, andoutcome assessors are unaware of the patient's assigned treatment throughout the conduct of the trial.1 They are quite wrong to do so. The whole point of a successful double blind trial is that there should be unblinding through efficacy. That is to say that there should be …
Key concepts: Blinding, Double blind, Medicine, Optometry, Psychology, Randomized controlled trial, Alternative medicine, Surgery