A critique of the double-blind clinical trial. Part 1.
Helmut Kiene
Abstract
Helmut Kiene
Abstract
The randomized, double-blind study is generally regarded as the gold standard of clinical drug trials. Bias can occur as a result of the blinding procedure itself, but discussions of this type of bias have been few and far between. This article presents a detailed discussion of such blinding errors, which can obscure genuine drug effects and be of a sufficient magnitude as to generate false-negative results. Uncritical blinding in clinical studies should therefore be questioned.
OpenAlex reports 21 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.
The randomized, double-blind study is generally regarded as the gold standard of clinical drug trials. Bias can occur as a result of the blinding procedure itself, but discussions of this type of bias have been few and far between. This article presents a detailed discussion of such blinding errors, which can obscure genuine drug effects and be of a sufficient magnitude as to generate false-negative results. Uncritical blinding in clinical studies should therefore be questioned.
Key concepts: Blinding, Double blind, Gold standard (test), Clinical trial, Double standard, Medicine, Drug trial, Psychology