Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA; Iain Chalmers, DSc; Douglas G. Altman, DSc
Acknowledgment: The authors thank Dr. Ted J. Kaptchuk for his review of earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Requests for Single Reprints: Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA, Family Health International, Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Schulz: Family Health International, Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
Dr. Chalmers: UK Cochrane Centre, NHS Research and Development Programme, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford, United Kingdom OX2 7LG.
Professor Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom OX3 7LF.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG. The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:254-259. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00022
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(3):254-259.
Blinding in medical research possesses a rich history spanning a couple of centuries (1). Most researchers and readers grasp its meaning. Unfortunately, beyond that general understanding lies confusion. In addition to terms such as “single blind” and “double blind” meaning different things to different people, some steadfastly refuse to use the term “blinding” and insist instead on the term “masking.” Others confuse blinding with other methodologic precautions, such as concealment of allocation during the process of creating comparison groups. Still others consider that randomization is of little use unless accompanied by “double-blinding,” thus revealing that they have not understood that these separate aspects of methodology address separate sources of bias.
Learn more about subscription options.
Register Now for a free account.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only