In a double-blind experiment, bias is substantially reduced because not only are patients unaware of the treatment they are receiving, but doctors/researchers are unaware of the treatment they are administering. For your proposed experiment, I would divide a group of women (say sample size, n = 20) into two groups of n = 10. Group A is the treatment group, where participants receive the natural supplement in pill-form. Group B is the placebo, or control group that receives a pill identical to the one Group A receives, but instead of containing the natural supplement, the pill contains sugar (or anything that looks very similar to the actual supplement). Other than administering different types of pills, the rest of the experiment should be identical for both Groups A and B. Therefore, pill administration protocols, clinical observations post-pill administration, data analysis, etc. must be the same for both groups. Since doctors/researchers in this study are also unaware of which treatment they are administering, keeping protocols for both groups identical is far more simple than in a single-blind study. Bias can be even further reduced with a triple-blind study, which prevents any bias during the data analysis stage of the study. Other than reducing bias, what are some other benefits of blinded studies?

Following the previous reply, having a double-blind clinical trial would reduce any bias seen in a research study. To conduct a double-blind study for research regarding fibroids in black women, the following study can be conducted: 

First, participants would need to be selected at random within a diverse group of black women to reduce any bias. Next, the researchers would need to obtain informed consent from the participants and provide the participants with just enough information regarding the nature of the blind study. It is imperative to ensure that the participants are not being provided with the details of the study itself (such as which group consists of what testing) as this would defeat the purpose of the blind study. Next, a third party would need to randomize the participants into 2 groups (treatment and control group) without letting other researchers know which group is what. After this, the third party would need to prepare the supplements, where one group would receive the actual supplement and the other group would receive a placebo that is visually identical to the supplement; neither the participants nor the researchers would know which group is receiving what. This randomization would need to be labeled as groups A and B where only the third party would know which group consists of which drug. Next, the data would need to be collected and analyzed, again without any knowledge of which group consists of which treatment. Furthermore, a group of clinicians would need to be present to monitor the health of the participants and provide data on the effects of the treatment given to each group. Again, the clinician would not know which group received which treatment. After data analysis has been done, the study would then need to be unblinded where the participants can be told which treatment they received and results can then be drawn from this study. 

Another benefit of blinded studies, especially double- or triple-blind designs, is the reduction of the placebo effect. In cases where participants know they’re receiving a treatment, there’s a psychological tendency to perceive improvement due to expectations, regardless of actual effectiveness. By blinding both participants and researchers, the placebo effect is minimized, which can lead to more accurate data on the real efficacy of the supplement in reducing fibroids.