Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert
From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Double Blind Studies.
Message-ID: <1304@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 10:47:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: hammer.1304
Posted: Wed Jun  5 10:47:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 22:42:27 EDT
References: <1686@aecom.UUCP>
Reply-To: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 22
Xref: tektronix net.med:01662 
Summary: 

In article <1686@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes:

[ referring to a question about withholding treatment during studies ]

>	This is a good point, and the paradox caused by it has in fact
>really caused the demise of true double-blind studies. It is no longer
>ethical to test a drug that has a known positive effect against a true
>placebo, only against another drug and/or therapy.

Why can't double-blind tests be used when comparing one drug
against another drug?  Double-blind means neither the patient,
nor the person adminstering the pill (shot, whatever) knows
which group the patient is in.  It doesn't matter whether one
group is getting a placebo or another drug, the test can still be
double-blind.

Certain treatments are difficult or impossible to do double-blind.
For example, how would you do a double-blind test comparing
plaster casts to 'soft' casts?

Snoopy
tektronix!mako!seifert