DOUBLE-BLIND VERSUS DECEPTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF A PLACEBO
DOUBLE-BLIND VERSUS DECEPTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF A PLACEBO
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0735-7044.102.2.319
复制
发表时间：
1988-04-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
WEIXEL, LJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
KIRSCH, I;WEIXEL, LJ
受试者被给予不同剂量的安慰剂，包括无咖啡因咖啡，并带有双盲或欺骗性说明。欺骗性给药模拟了受试者的临床情况，受试者被引导相信他们可能接受了活性药物。相比之下，双盲条件下的受试者意识到他们可能会得到安慰剂。安慰剂的双盲和欺骗性给药对脉率、收缩压和主观情绪产生不同的，在某些情况下，相反的效果。伪装给药使脉搏频率增加，而双盲给药没有。假性给药证实了理论上预测的对收缩压、警觉性、紧张度和摄入咖啡因的确定性的曲线效应，但双盲给药没有证实。双盲给药在这些变量中的每个变量上都产生了相反方向的曲线。安慰剂对运动性能的影响因受试者对咖啡因影响的信念而有所不同。这些数据挑战了双盲实验设计的有效性，并表明这种常见的药物方法可能会导致虚假的结论。
Subjects were given varying doses of a placebo, consisting of decaffeinated coffee, with double-blind or deceptive instructions. Deceptive administration simulated clinical situations in that subjects were led to believe that they might receiving an active drug. In contrast, subjects in double-blind conditions were aware that they might receive a placebo. Double-blind and deceptive administration of the placebo produced different, and in some instances, opposite effects on pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, and subjective mood. Deceptive administration produced an increase in pulse rate, whereas double-blind administration did not. A theoretically predicted curvilinear effect on systolic blood pressure, alertness, tension, and certainty of having consumed caffeine was confirmed with deceptive administration, but not with double-blind administration. Double-blind administration produced curves in the opposite direction on each of these variables. The effects of the placebo on motor performance varied as a function of subjects'' beliefs about the effects of caffeine. These data challenge the validity of double-blind experimental designs and suggest that this common method of drug may lead to spurious conclusions.