Should Clinical Trials With Concurrent Economic Analyses Be Blinded?
- 1 January 1997
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 277 (1) , 63-64
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540250071034
Abstract
ECONOMIC ANALYSES are increasingly conducted alongside clinical trials, as the funders of research recognize that they require estimates of both the costs and benefits of health care interventions. In fact, many commissioning organizations will fund clinical trials only if they are designed to provide estimates of cost-effectiveness, and economic analyses are already being used to inform decisions on the reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in some health care systems.1The addition of economic data collection and analysis to clinical trials raises a number of important methodological issues,2including whether those clinical trials incorporating an economic analysis should be blinded. Rationale for Blinding in Clinical Trials Blinding physicians and patients to treatment allocation in clinical trials aims to reduce bias in estimates of treatment effect, since outcomes are often open to interpretation, and knowledge of the treatment regimen may affect patient or physician behavior. The impact of blinding on estimates ofKeywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trialsPublished by Elsevier ,2004
- Lessons from international experience in controlling pharmaceutical expenditure. I: influencing patientsBMJ, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- An International Randomized Trial Comparing Four Thrombolytic Strategies for Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- Economic Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: Revisiting the Methodological IssuesInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1991