The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the investigators can be biased they can have hidden biases if they know the outcome so for example if patients are being given a drug for weight loss you could say well it's pretty easy to you know blind the patients from that but if the investigators know that they might behave differently towards the patients for whom they expect greater weight loss if they believe that this drug is effective
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
in an Ideal World both the subjects and the investigators should not know who is getting the treatment and who is getting the placebo at a minimum the subjects should not know that would be single blinding but again double blinding is always preferred if possible