Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: An analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial

Mauro Moscucci, Louise Byrne, Michael Weintraub, Christopher Cox

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We administered a questionnaire to assess maintenance of patients' blindness at the end of a double-blind clinical trial of Osmotic Release Oral System phenylpropanolamine (PPA) vs. placebo in mild obesity. Seventy-four percent of placebo participants and 43% of PPA participants guessed their treatment correctly. Appetite control was the most frequently reported basis for guessing PPA, even by placebo participants. Lack of adverse drug reactions was the most frequently reported basis for guessing placebo, even by PPA participants. Participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing PPA lost more weight, had less diet difficulty, and had more adverse drug reactions than had participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing placebo. Although blindness was probably maintained in the PPA group, the placebo group seems to have been, at least at the study's end, unblinded. These results suggest that in double-blind studies, differences in outcome or incidence of adverse drug reactions may act as unblinding factors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)259-265
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Volume41
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 1987
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Phenylpropanolamine
Placebo Effect
Placebos
Clinical Trials
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Blindness
Therapeutics
Appetite
Double-Blind Method
Obesity
Maintenance
Diet
Weights and Measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect : An analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial. / Moscucci, Mauro; Byrne, Louise; Weintraub, Michael; Cox, Christopher.

In: Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 41, No. 3, 03.1987, p. 259-265.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f5aabf3ea9874bf89c9b226c774be51a,
title = "Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: An analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial",
abstract = "We administered a questionnaire to assess maintenance of patients' blindness at the end of a double-blind clinical trial of Osmotic Release Oral System phenylpropanolamine (PPA) vs. placebo in mild obesity. Seventy-four percent of placebo participants and 43{\%} of PPA participants guessed their treatment correctly. Appetite control was the most frequently reported basis for guessing PPA, even by placebo participants. Lack of adverse drug reactions was the most frequently reported basis for guessing placebo, even by PPA participants. Participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing PPA lost more weight, had less diet difficulty, and had more adverse drug reactions than had participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing placebo. Although blindness was probably maintained in the PPA group, the placebo group seems to have been, at least at the study's end, unblinded. These results suggest that in double-blind studies, differences in outcome or incidence of adverse drug reactions may act as unblinding factors.",
author = "Mauro Moscucci and Louise Byrne and Michael Weintraub and Christopher Cox",
year = "1987",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "259--265",
journal = "Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics",
issn = "0009-9236",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect

T2 - An analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial

AU - Moscucci, Mauro

AU - Byrne, Louise

AU - Weintraub, Michael

AU - Cox, Christopher

PY - 1987/3

Y1 - 1987/3

N2 - We administered a questionnaire to assess maintenance of patients' blindness at the end of a double-blind clinical trial of Osmotic Release Oral System phenylpropanolamine (PPA) vs. placebo in mild obesity. Seventy-four percent of placebo participants and 43% of PPA participants guessed their treatment correctly. Appetite control was the most frequently reported basis for guessing PPA, even by placebo participants. Lack of adverse drug reactions was the most frequently reported basis for guessing placebo, even by PPA participants. Participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing PPA lost more weight, had less diet difficulty, and had more adverse drug reactions than had participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing placebo. Although blindness was probably maintained in the PPA group, the placebo group seems to have been, at least at the study's end, unblinded. These results suggest that in double-blind studies, differences in outcome or incidence of adverse drug reactions may act as unblinding factors.

AB - We administered a questionnaire to assess maintenance of patients' blindness at the end of a double-blind clinical trial of Osmotic Release Oral System phenylpropanolamine (PPA) vs. placebo in mild obesity. Seventy-four percent of placebo participants and 43% of PPA participants guessed their treatment correctly. Appetite control was the most frequently reported basis for guessing PPA, even by placebo participants. Lack of adverse drug reactions was the most frequently reported basis for guessing placebo, even by PPA participants. Participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing PPA lost more weight, had less diet difficulty, and had more adverse drug reactions than had participants receiving either PPA or placebo and guessing placebo. Although blindness was probably maintained in the PPA group, the placebo group seems to have been, at least at the study's end, unblinded. These results suggest that in double-blind studies, differences in outcome or incidence of adverse drug reactions may act as unblinding factors.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023102249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023102249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 3816016

AN - SCOPUS:0023102249

VL - 41

SP - 259

EP - 265

JO - Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

JF - Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

SN - 0009-9236

IS - 3

ER -