Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Blinding01:11

Blinding

4.2K
Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
4.2K
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

14.0K
Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...
14.0K
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

403
Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
403
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients01:15

Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients

229
Bioavailability studies are essential for evaluating a drug's therapeutic efficacy and understanding its absorption patterns under various physiological conditions. Conducting such studies on target patient populations provides more relevant data by simulating real-world disease states. However, practical challenges often necessitate the use of young, healthy adult volunteers as study subjects.Patients may exhibit altered drug absorption patterns due to the effects of the disease itself,...
229
Taste Buds and Receptors01:20

Taste Buds and Receptors

6.2K
Gustation, or the sense of taste, is intrinsically linked to the anatomical structures located on the tongue. This organ's surface, along with the entirety of the oral cavity, is adorned with stratified squamous epithelium. Evident on the tongue are elevated structures known as papillae (singular = papilla), which house the mechanisms for the transduction of gustatory stimuli. Four distinct types of papillae exist, each identified by their unique morphological attributes: the circumvallate,...
6.2K
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

398
Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...
398

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Impact of a training program on gastroenterology health care professionals' patient-centered shared decision-making: a pilot study.

BMC gastroenterology·2026
Same author

Time to Refresh: Design and Evaluation of Refresher Training to Sustain Procedural Teaching Skills.

Perspectives on medical education·2026
Same author

Enhanced Trainer Performance and Resident Learning Following Implementation of a Training the Colonoscopy Trainers Course.

Gastroenterology·2025
Same author

Barriers to Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Postgraduate Medical Education: The Role of Disease-Centered Beliefs.

Perspectives on medical education·2025
Same author

Shared decision making and inhaled medication adherence in patients with COPD, asthma and cystic fibrosis: a systematic review.

Respiratory medicine·2025
Same author

Completing Death Certificates in Hospital Setting: What Can Go Wrong, Will Go Wrong.

Academic forensic pathology·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 20, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
04:53

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

11.5K

Differences between observers in interpreting double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges: a randomized trial.

Paul L P Brand1, Marlouk A Landzaat-Berghuizen

  • 1Princess Amalia Children's Centre, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands; UMCG Postgraduate School of Medicine, University Medical Centre and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Pediatric Allergy and Immunology : Official Publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology
|November 19, 2014
PubMed
Summary

Opening the challenge key early in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) significantly reduces positive interpretations. Standardizing key opening is recommended for consistent DBPCFC results in ambiguous cases.

Keywords:
double-blind placebo-controlled food challengefood allergypriming

More Related Videos

A Treatment Package without Escape Extinction to Address Food Selectivity
04:23

A Treatment Package without Escape Extinction to Address Food Selectivity

Published on: August 21, 2015

12.2K
Assessment of Social Transmission of Food Preferences Behaviors
04:56

Assessment of Social Transmission of Food Preferences Behaviors

Published on: January 25, 2018

8.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 20, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
04:53

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

11.5K
A Treatment Package without Escape Extinction to Address Food Selectivity
04:23

A Treatment Package without Escape Extinction to Address Food Selectivity

Published on: August 21, 2015

12.2K
Assessment of Social Transmission of Food Preferences Behaviors
04:56

Assessment of Social Transmission of Food Preferences Behaviors

Published on: January 25, 2018

8.7K

Area of Science:

  • Allergy and Immunology
  • Clinical Trial Methodology
  • Diagnostic Procedures

Background:

  • Interpreting double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) with ambiguous symptoms is challenging.
  • Early unblinding of the challenge key can bias clinician interpretation of DBPCFC results.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the impact of early key opening on the interpretation of DBPCFC results.
  • To determine if the timing of unblinding affects the perceived positivity of DBPCFCs.

Main Methods:

  • Fifty-one clinicians reviewed 19 DBPCFCs with ambiguous symptoms.
  • Clinicians were randomized to either a 'key first' or 'symptoms first' strategy for interpreting DBPCFCs.
  • The 'key first' group opened the challenge key before symptom review, while the 'symptoms first' group reviewed symptoms before unblinding.

Main Results:

  • The proportion of inconclusive DBPCFCs was similar between groups (p = 0.791).
  • The 'symptoms first' group was significantly more likely to interpret DBPCFCs as positive (73.7%) compared to the 'key first' group (21.1%) (p = 0.031).
  • This effect was independent of clinician's profession, age, gender, or experience.

Conclusions:

  • Clinician interpretation of DBPCFCs with ambiguous symptoms varies.
  • Opening the challenge key before symptom interpretation significantly reduces the likelihood of a positive DBPCFC result.
  • Standardized guidelines for DBPCFC key opening are needed to ensure consistent interpretation.