[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.87.119.171. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Editor's Correspondence
July 11, 2011

Outcome-Blinded Peer Review

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1213-1214. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.56

The study conducted by Emerson et al1 provides strong evidence of positive outcome bias, yet does not fully address how to approach the problem. Making reviewers and authors more aware of the problem of positive outcome bias, as Emerson et al1 suggest, could increase the number of articles published with null findings. But adding a counteracting bias to the already present positive outcome bias might lead to over- or undercompensation. Theoretically, one could only remove (as opposed to counteract) positive outcome bias by blinding reviewers to the outcomes of studies. A practical version of this would be to semiblind.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×