Probably but the use and interpretation of blinding indexes is still a bit controversial. For example, the 2001 CONSORT guidelines suggested using and reporting a blinding index but the latest 2010 version dropped it, saying:
Item 11 (blinding)—We added the specification of how blinding was done and, if relevant, a description of the similarity of interventions and procedures. We also eliminated text on “how the success of blinding (masking) was assessed” because of a lack of empirical evidence supporting the practice, as well as theoretical concerns about the validity of any such assessment (23, 24).
- 23. Sackett DL. "Commentary: Measuring the success of blinding in RCTs: don’t, must, can’t or needn't?" Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:664-5. [PMID: 17675306]
- 24. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. "Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what". Lancet. 2002;359:696-700. [PMID: 11879884]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/pdf/zfp_222_3_128.pdf
The background on this story is a community of science people found a bunch of unpublished studies that, when weighed with the studies which supported antidepressant approval, showed they were no more effective than placebo in mild-moderate cases.
Except unlike placebo, antidepressants express a wider range of severe side effects, like worsening depression and suicide.
Isn't this a scandal? How do psychiatrists still prescribe these en masse?