{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020370370370370372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004629629629629629, 'mean_word_length': 5.142045454545454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Masking or blinding? An unscientific survey of mostly medical journal editors on the great debate.

I intended to end the great debate about whether "masking" is preferred to "blinding" when describing clinical trials in which group assignment is concealed from patients, data collectors, and sometimes statisticians. I conducted a highly unscientific survey, mostly of medical journal editors from the World Association of Medical Editors, but also of several strangers and distant relatives. Respondents were asked whether they preferred masking, blinding, or had no preference or considered the distinction to be unimportant. More than 80 people responded, representing 6 continents and several languages. Masking was preferred to blinding 3 to 1. However, the number of people reporting that either term is acceptable or that the issue is unimportant was about the same as the number who voted for masking. I conclude that both terms are acceptable in the context of reporting clinical research and that either may be used without confusion. I pronounce the great debate dead.