Browsing by Subject "DISSENT"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-2 of 2
  • Hemilä, Harri (2005)
    In their paper discussing the assessment of blinding in clinical trials, Bang et al. based their analysis on the premise that "all participants randomly guess their assignment... This is the most ideal scenario in reality". However, this premise makes an implicit assumption that the drug does not differ from placebo in any physiological effects that a person could observe subjectively, which is a very strong assumption. If a drug is truly effective, such as penicillin for pneumococcal pneumonia, both the patient and the physician can infer the treatment with high certainty by subjective observations. Thus, when the drug is truly effective, we are expecting "breaking of blindness".
  • Hemilä, Harri (2008)
    In their paper discussing the importance of double-blinding in controlled trials, Furberg and Soliman stated that one of the established and fundamental principles for avoiding the problem of bias is to keep the study participants and the investigators blinded, or masked, to the identity of the assigned interventions. As a support to this argument they described the subgroup findings of Karlowski et al.s trial, which examined the effect of vitamin C supplementation on the commoncold[2,3]. Furberg and Soliman put a great weight on the importance of double-blinding, yet they are lax on other fundamental principles of controlled trial.