Jespersen C M
Medical Department II, Kommunehospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1990;39(1):75-6. doi: 10.1007/BF02657062.
In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study comparing verapamil and placebo in late secondary intervention after acute myocardial infarction, the physicians were asked to try to identify the treatment in 100 consecutive patients. The assessment of the presumed treatment was based upon the presence of effects and side effects. It was only possible correctly to group 36% (95%: 26.7-46.2) of the patients. 35 patients were grouped as indeterminable. In 65 a treatment was proposed, correctly in 55%, and thus ideal blindedness had been achieved.
在一项双盲、随机、安慰剂对照研究中，比较维拉帕米和安慰剂在急性心肌梗死后晚期二级干预中的效果，要求医生对连续100例患者的治疗情况进行判断。对假定治疗的评估基于疗效和副作用。只有36%（95%可信区间：26.7 - 46.2）的患者能够被正确分组。35例患者被归为无法确定组。在65例患者中提出了一种治疗方案，其中55%正确，因此达到了理想的盲法效果。
