Hima - 'authenticity' is not just reliant on levels and degrees of blinding. More blinding does not necessarily equate to more rigour. Other factors - such as levels of control, randomisation are key. A well conducted single-blinded trial is better than a poorer double-blinded. If both a single and double-blinded study are of equal quality - I would argue no one is better than the other - as long as the context for the level of blindness is well rationalised and justified in each case.
Yes, they are in general. Blinding is very important to minimize/avoid post-randomization bias. However, the confidence is in the "process" not in any particular study.
Hi Hima,
A double-blind, placebo controlled RCT is the gold-standard for a clinical study.
However, while a double-blind RCT would generally be considered more internally valid than single-blind studies, this is very subjective and would be greatly influenced by the overall nature and design of the study. For instance, a study with an objective outcome such as cancer recurrence, the absence of blinding may not be a significant source of bias, as opposed to studies with subjective outcomes.
Regards,
Blinding though is a important parameter but there are other factors too which would affect the authenticity of a trial .The process is extremely important. The Design of the study and it's validation plays a more significant role .
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation