Double‐Dummy
Kenneth F. Schulz
Abstract
Kenneth F. Schulz
Abstract
Abstract Blinding embodies a rich history spanning several centuries. Double‐blinding usually reduces differential assessment of outcomes (information bias), but can also improve compliance and retention of trial participants while reducing biased supplemental care or treatment (sometimes called co‐intervention). With an active treatment control group, different options to double‐blinding present production obstacles, compliance impediments, and unblinding opportunities. To double‐blind in this situation, double‐dummy blinding nearly always becomes indispensable.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
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.
Abstract Blinding embodies a rich history spanning several centuries. Double‐blinding usually reduces differential assessment of outcomes (information bias), but can also improve compliance and retention of trial participants while reducing biased supplemental care or treatment (sometimes called co‐intervention). With an active treatment control group, different options to double‐blinding present production obstacles, compliance impediments, and unblinding opportunities. To double‐blind in this situation, double‐dummy blinding nearly always becomes indispensable.
Key concepts: Blinding, Double blind, Control (management), Medicine, Psychology, Computer science, Clinical trial, Alternative medicine