| Description |
1 online resource |
| Contents |
Front Cover; Blinding as a Solution to Bias; Copyright; Contents; List of Contributors; Foreword; I -- Introduction and overview; Introduction; OVERVIEW; BOOK ORGANIZATION; Introduction; Biomedical Sciences; Forensic Sciences; Legal Institutions; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS; II -- Blinding and Bias; 1 -- A Primer on the Psychology of Cognitive Bias; A Primer on the Psychology of Cognitive Bias; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF HUMAN/ OGNITION; CONTEXT EFFECTS; Initial Impressions; Judgments; Types of Decision-Making Activities; The Bias Snowball Effect; MITIGATING THE EFFECT OF CONTEXT; CONCLUSION |
|
2 -- Why Blinding? How Blinding? A Theory of Blinding and Its Application to Institutional CorruptionBLINDING AS DISAGGREGATION; THE BREADTH OF BLINDING; INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION AND THE FAILURE/ F COMMON SOLUTIONS; BLINDING AS A SOLUTION TO INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION; BLINDING APPLIED TO LITIGATION, SCIENCE, / ND POLITICS; CONCLUSION; III -- Biomedical Science; Rigor in Biomedical Science; References; 3 -- From Trials to Trials: Blinding, Medicine, and Honest Adjudication; INTRODUCTION; BLINDING OF PATIENTS; BLINDING OF RESEARCHERS; BLINDING IN MEDICINE MOVES TO THE COURTROOM |
|
4 -- Blinding in Biomedical Research: An Essential Method to Reduce Risk of BiasINTRODUCTION; TERMINOLOGY AND REPORTING; MECHANISMS FOR INTRODUCING BIAS IN NONBLINDED STUDIES; EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE IMPACT OF BLINDING; Blinding of Outcome Assessors; Blinding of Patients; Blinding of Health-Care Providers; RISK OF UNBLINDING; BLINDING IN NONRANDOMIZED STUDY/ ESIGNS; Animal Studies; Epidemiology: Case-Control and Cohort Studies; Diagnostic Studies; Systematic Reviews and Other Study/ esigns; CONCLUSION; 5 -- Blind Peer Review by Academic Journals; INTRODUCTION; OVERVIEW OF PEER REVIEW |
|
Process of Peer ReviewTypes of Peer Review; A Note on the Evidence; DOUBLE-BLINDING AS A MEANS OF/ NHANCING FAIRNESS; Fairness to Authors from Less-Prestigious Institutions; Fairness to Non-US Authors; Fairness to Prolific Authors; Fairness to Female Authors; The Perception of Fairness; BLINDING AS A MEANS OF IMPROVING/ HE QUALITY OF REVIEWS; Effects of (Not) Revealing Author/ dentity; Effects of (Not) Revealing Reviewer/ dentity; BREAKING THE (DOUBLE) BLIND; How Double-Blinding Is/ ccomplished; Blinding Success Rates; Impact of Technology on Blinding |
|
PREFERENCES FOR OPEN, SINGLE-, OR/ OUBLE-BLIND REVIEWCONCLUSION; 6 -- Clinical Trial Blinding in the Age of Social Media; INTRODUCTION; RESEARCHER-LED UNBLINDING; PATIENT-LED UNBLINDING; A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT; 7 -- The Ethics of Single-Blind Trials in Biomedicine; INTRODUCTION; INTERNAL MAMMARY ARTERY LIGATION: AN INSTRUCTIVE CASE STUDY; JUSTIFYING INVASIVE PLACEBO CONTROLS: RISK-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT; DECEPTION AND INFORMED CONSENT; CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS; 8 -- "Money Blinding" as a Solution to Biased Design and Conduct of Scientific Research; THE PROBLEM OF COMMERCIAL BIAS/ N SCIENCE |
| Summary |
What information should jurors have during court proceedings to render a just decision? Should politicians know who is donating money to their campaigns? Will scientists draw biased conclusions about drug efficacy when they know more about the patient or study population? The potential for bias in decision-making by physicians, lawyers, politicians, and scientists has been recognized for hundreds of years and drawn attention from media and scholars seeking to understand the role that conflicts of interests and other psychological processes play. However, commonly proposed solutions to biased decision-making, such as transparency (disclosing conflicts) or exclusion (avoiding conflicts) do not directly solve the underlying problem of bias and may have unintended consequences. Robertson and Kesselheim bring together a renowned group of interdisciplinary scholars to consider another way to reduce the risk of biased decision-making: blinding. What are the advantages and limitations of blinding?ïŽ How can we quantify the biases in unblinded research? Can we develop new ways to blind decision-makers?ïŽ What are the ethical problems with withholding information from decision-makers in the course of blinding?ïŽ How can blinding be adapted to legal and scientific procedures and in institutions not previously open to this approach? Fundamentally, these sorts of questions-about who needs to know what-open new doors of inquiry for the design of scientific research studies, regulatory institutions, and courts. The volume surveys the theory, practice, and future of blinding, drawing upon leading authors with a diverse range of methodologies and areas of expertise, including forensic sciences, medicine, law, philosophy, economics, psychology, sociology, and statistics |
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references and index |
| Notes |
English |
|
Online resource; title from PDF title page (EBSCO, viewed February 18, 2016) |
| Subject |
Biomedical engineering.
|
|
Forensic sciences.
|
|
Forensic Sciences
|
|
biomedical engineering.
|
|
forensic science.
|
|
HEALTH & FITNESS -- Holism.
|
|
HEALTH & FITNESS -- Reference.
|
|
MEDICAL -- Alternative Medicine.
|
|
MEDICAL -- Atlases.
|
|
MEDICAL -- Essays.
|
|
MEDICAL -- Family & General Practice.
|
|
MEDICAL -- Holistic Medicine.
|
|
MEDICAL -- Osteopathy.
|
|
Biomedical engineering
|
|
Forensic sciences
|
|
Enginyeria biomèdica.
|
|
Criminalística.
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| Author |
Robertson, Christopher T., editor
|
|
Kesselheim, Aaron S., author
|
| ISBN |
0128026332 |
|
9780128026335 |
|
