Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;328:1136 (8 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1136-a
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORI write with reference to the paper by Fergusson et al.1 Asking patients or their clinicians at the end of a trial which drug they think they were taking confounds failures in blinding with successes in pre-trial hunches about efficacy.
Thirty years ago, at the end of the first ever trial of aspirin and sulfinpyrazone for threatened stroke, we asked our trial clinicians to predict which drug each of their patients had been assigned.2 With four regimens in this "double dummy" trial, we'd expect correct predictions for 25% of patients; our clinicians' predictions were correct for only 18% of them (2P < 0.05).
This apparently nonsensical result made sense when we compared it with our incorrect pre-trial hunches that sulfinpyrazone probably was effective and aspirin probably was not. When our patients had done well, their clinicians tended to predict that they had received sulfinpyrazone; when patients had suffered
David L Sackett, trialist
Trout Research and Education Centre at Irish Lake, RR 1, Markdale, ON, Canada N0C 1H0 sackett@bmts.com
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+