Some “facts” may not exist independent of the apparatus of their production. Such potential distortions indicate that the double-blind RCT may not be objective in the realist sense, but rather is objective in a “softer” disciplinary sense. The concealment in a placebo-controlled RCT seems capable of generating a “masking bias.” Other potential biases, such as “investigator self-selection,” “preference,” and “consent” are also briefly discussed. This methodology, a hypothetical “platinum” standard, can be used to judge the “gold” standard. Can an “unbiased” method produce bias? Among the experiments examined are those that augment the methodological stringency of a normal RCT in order to render the experiment less susceptible to subversion by the mind. Double-blind peer review may strip a paper down to just the science and may well be an. The article then examines the possibility that some of this “deviation from truth” may be the result of artifacts introduced by the masked RCT itself. A 2012 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that identical application materials for a lab position were more favorably read when the name at the top of the resume was John, rather than Jennifer.
A brief overview of historical and recent developments in “the discrepancy argument” is presented. The validity of the RCT rests not just on theoretical arguments, but also on the discrepancy between the RCT and less rigorous evidence (the difference is sometimes considered an objective measure of bias).
#Double blind study trial#
The double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) is accepted by medicine as objective scientific methodology that, when ideally performed, produces knowledge untainted by bias. A very early example of randomisation and double blinding was an evaluation of homeopathy conducted in Nuremberg in 1835 by a society of truth-loving men (.
0 kommentar(er)
