Literature DB >> 7127995

How blind was the patient blind in AMIS?

J Howard, A S Whittemore, J J Hoover, M Panos.   

Abstract

The Aspirin Myocardial Infarction Study (AMIS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test the effect of aspirin on the survival of 4524 people who had experienced a prior heart attack. Shortly before their closeout visits, 400 of the participants were randomly selected to be interviewed concerning their perceptions of their treatment assignments; 380 were actually interviewed. A bare majority (52)% correctly identified their study therapy, 28% mistakenly named the alternative treatment, 13% declined to guess, and 7% specified extraneous substances. According to the proposed formula for evaluating the patient blind, only 24% of the sample made "informed" guesses regarding their therapy, while the remainder guessed in an uninformed way or not at all. Those who tested their capsules (usually be taste) showed proportionately more correct responses than the nontesters. Correctness also varied with the reasons for the subjects' guesses (e.g., side effects). Among the sample as a whole, most people were only moderately or less than moderately certain their guess was correct. Even among those who were in fact correct, only 18% were absolutely certain of their choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7127995     DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1982.201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0009-9236            Impact factor:   6.875


  4 in total

1.  Can keeping clinical trial participants blind to their study treatment adversely affect subsequent care?

Authors:  Joseph C Blader
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Informed consent and placebo effects: a content analysis of information leaflets to identify what clinical trial participants are told about placebos.

Authors:  Felicity L Bishop; Alison E M Adams; Ted J Kaptchuk; George T Lewith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Adjusting for perception and unmasking effects in longitudinal clinical trials.

Authors:  Alan Hubbard; Farid Jamshidian; Nicholas Jewell
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2012-12-31       Impact factor: 1.829

4.  Altruism, personal benefit, and anxieties: a phenomenological study of healthy volunteers' experiences in a placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine.

Authors:  Isaac N Kwakye; Matthew Garner; David S Baldwin; Susan Bamford; Verity Pinkney; Felicity L Bishop
Journal:  Hum Psychopharmacol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.672

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.