The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How “blind” are double-blind studies?
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“In particular, side effects associated with SSRIs can inadvertently reveal participants' group assignments, undermining the blind.”
From Revisiting the SSRI vs. placebo debate in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: the role of expectancy effects, neural responsivity, and monoamine transporters (2025) · cites this paper as Margraf et al., 1991
In the citing paper
“Both patients and clinicians often correctly guess whether they are in the active drug or placebo group, likely enhancing responses in the drug group and reducing responses in the placebo group (Chen et al., 2011, 2015; Hróbjartsson et al., 2014; Margraf et al., 1991; Baethge et al., 2013).”
From Revisiting the SSRI vs. placebo debate in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: the role of expectancy effects, neural responsivity, and monoamine transporters (2025) · cites this paper as Margraf et al., 1991
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication.
Kirsch, I., & Sapirstein, G. (1998) · Prevention & Treatment · doi:10.1037/1522-3736.1.1.12a · Cited by 509
Mitte, K. (2005) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2005.05.003 · Cited by 324
Is neurofeedback an efficacious treatment for ADHD? A randomised controlled clinical trial.
Gevensleben, H., Holl, B., Albrecht, B., Vogel, C., Schlamp, D., Kratz, O., Studer, P., Rothenberger, A., Moll, G., & Heinrich, H. (2009) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02033.x · Cited by 442
Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials
Prescott, Counsell, Gillespie, Grant, Russell, Kiauka, Colthart, Ross, Shepherd, & Russell (1999) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta3200 · Cited by 390
Strehl, U., Leins, U., Goth, G., Klinger, C., Hinterberger, T., & Birbaumer, N. (2006) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2478 · Cited by 315
Metadata
- 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
