This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Nick Freemantle, MA; Michael Drummond, DPhil

JAMA. 1997;277(1):63-64.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

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.¹ The addition of economic data collection and analysis to clinical trials raises a number of important methodological issues,² including 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 of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Centre for Health Economics (Mr Freemantle and Dr Drummond) and the Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation (Mr Freemantle), University of York, York, England.

Footnotes
Reprints: Nick Freemantle, MA, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York Y01 5DD, England (e-mail: nf2@york.ac.uk).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?