RT Journal
A1 Mirkin JN, Bach PB
T1 OUtcome-blinded peer review
JF Archives of Internal Medicine
JO Archives of Internal Medicine
YR 2011
FD July 11
VO 171
IS 13
SP 1213
OP 1214
DO 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.56
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.56
AB 
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.