Cited by 135Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPsychology Research and BibliometricsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

How “blind” are double-blind studies?

Margraf, Jürgen, Ehlers, Anke, Roth, Walton T., Clark, Duncan B., Sheikh, Javaid, Agras, W. Stewart, Taylor, C. Barr·1991·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Psychopharmacological studies usually attempt to eliminate "nonspecific" influences on outcome by double-blind designs. In a randomized, double-blind comparison of alprazolam, imipramine, and placebo, the great majority of panic disorder patients (N = 59) and their physicians were able to rate accurately whether active drug or placebo had been given. Moreover, physicians could distinguish between the two types of active drugs. Inasmuch as correct rating was possible halfway through treatment, concerns about the internal validity of the double-blind strategy arise.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.184

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Margraf, J., Ehlers, A., Roth, W. T., Clark, D. B., Sheikh, J., Agras, W. S., & Taylor, C. B.
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
1991
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
184-187
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W4242987884
Cited by
135
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (40118)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
double-blind study, blinding, placebo effect, research bias
MeSH terms
Adult, Alprazolam, Anxiety Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Imipramine, Male, Middle Aged, Panic, Placebos, Psychotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review