Zamboni study was blinded?

Ernst · Post by **Ernst** » Thu May 27, 2010 8:30 am

Sorry to bother you with quite simple detail.. but latey I have red critique that Zambonis research wasn't blinded. But If I understand correctly, this was blind study?
--> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1914 ... d_RVDocSum

Yes or no?

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Thu May 27, 2010 10:28 am

his diagnostic studies were blinded, his one endovascular treatment trial was not blinded...I am assuming the one joint treatment trial, with both Zamboni and Buffalo involved, was blinded?

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Fri May 28, 2010 2:01 am

Cece wrote:his diagnostic studies were blinded, his one endovascular treatment trial was not blinded...I am assuming the one joint treatment trial, with both Zamboni and Buffalo involved, was blinded?

It was blinded but without treatment. (It was not a treatment trial)

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Fri May 28, 2010 6:34 am

thanks for the correction, Sotiris.

That was the one where they found CCSVI in 100% of MSers and 0% of controls. With Buffalo's involvement. This was part of why it was so surprising when Buffalo's next study came out with quite different percentages.

Such a roller coaster!

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Fri May 28, 2010 11:56 am

Cece wrote:thanks for the correction, Sotiris.

That was the one where they found CCSVI in 100% of MSers and 0% of controls. With Buffalo's involvement. This was part of why it was so surprising when Buffalo's next study came out with quite different percentages.

Such a roller coaster!

They were the italian team (experience plays its role). The buffalo team was performing the MRIs and the clinical examinations.

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Fri May 28, 2010 4:56 pm

Well, that makes more sense now...I will go back and reread the paper.