James E G Charlesworth1, Grace Petkovic1, John M Kelley2,3, Monika Hunter4, Igho Onakpoya1, Nia Roberts5, Franklin G Miller6, Jeremy Howick1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Psychiatry Department, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Psychology Department, Endicott College, Beverly, MA, USA. 4. Salomons Centre for Applied Psychology, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK. 5. Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of open-label placebos compared with no treatment in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and clinical trials registers and screened reference lists. The search was run on 27th April 2015. We included all randomized controlled trials of any medical condition with open-label placebo and no-treatment groups. Authors independently assessed records and extracted data. We excluded nonrandomized trials and nonclinical studies. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We screened 348 publications, assessed 24 articles for eligibility and identified five trials (260 participants) that met inclusion criteria. The clinical conditions were: irritable bowel syndrome, depression, allergic rhinitis, back pain, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The risk of bias was moderate. We found a positive effect for nondeceptive placebos (standardized mean difference 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14, P < 0.00001, I2 = 1%). CONCLUSIONS: Open-label placebos appear to have positive clinical effects compared to no treatment. Caution is warranted when interpreting these results due to the limited number of trials identified, lack of blinding, and the fact that positive messages were included alongside open-label placebos. Larger definitive trials are now warranted to explore the potential patient benefit of open-label placebos, to investigate the relative contributions of positive suggestions, and ethical implications.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of open-label placebos compared with no treatment in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and clinical trials registers and screened reference lists. The search was run on 27th April 2015. We included all randomized controlled trials of any medical condition with open-label placebo and no-treatment groups. Authors independently assessed records and extracted data. We excluded nonrandomized trials and nonclinical studies. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We screened 348 publications, assessed 24 articles for eligibility and identified five trials (260 participants) that met inclusion criteria. The clinical conditions were: irritable bowel syndrome, depression, allergic rhinitis, back pain, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The risk of bias was moderate. We found a positive effect for nondeceptive placebos (standardized mean difference 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14, P < 0.00001, I2 = 1%). CONCLUSIONS: Open-label placebos appear to have positive clinical effects compared to no treatment. Caution is warranted when interpreting these results due to the limited number of trials identified, lack of blinding, and the fact that positive messages were included alongside open-label placebos. Larger definitive trials are now warranted to explore the potential patient benefit of open-label placebos, to investigate the relative contributions of positive suggestions, and ethical implications.
Authors: Michael H Bernstein; Cosima Locher; Sif Stewart-Ferrer; Sarah Buergler; Catherine M DesRoches; Michelle L Dossett; Franklin G Miller; Deborah Grose; Charlotte R Blease Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2020-05-30
Authors: Andrea W M Evers; Luana Colloca; Charlotte Blease; Marco Annoni; Lauren Y Atlas; Fabrizio Benedetti; Ulrike Bingel; Christian Büchel; Claudia Carvalho; Ben Colagiuri; Alia J Crum; Paul Enck; Jens Gaab; Andrew L Geers; Jeremy Howick; Karin B Jensen; Irving Kirsch; Karin Meissner; Vitaly Napadow; Kaya J Peerdeman; Amir Raz; Winfried Rief; Lene Vase; Tor D Wager; Bruce E Wampold; Katja Weimer; Katja Wiech; Ted J Kaptchuk; Regine Klinger; John M Kelley Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Gianluca Castelnuovo; Emanuele Maria Giusti; Gian Mauro Manzoni; Donatella Saviola; Samantha Gabrielli; Marco Lacerenza; Giada Pietrabissa; Roberto Cattivelli; Chiara Anna Maria Spatola; Alessandro Rossi; Giorgia Varallo; Margherita Novelli; Valentina Villa; Francesca Luzzati; Andrea Cottini; Carlo Lai; Eleonora Volpato; Cesare Cavalera; Francesco Pagnini; Valentina Tesio; Lorys Castelli; Mario Tavola; Riccardo Torta; Marco Arreghini; Loredana Zanini; Amelia Brunani; Ionathan Seitanidis; Giuseppe Ventura; Paolo Capodaglio; Guido Edoardo D'Aniello; Federica Scarpina; Andrea Brioschi; Matteo Bigoni; Lorenzo Priano; Alessandro Mauro; Giuseppe Riva; Daniele Di Lernia; Claudia Repetto; Camillo Regalia; Enrico Molinari; Paolo Notaro; Stefano Paolucci; Giorgio Sandrini; Susan Simpson; Brenda Kay Wiederhold; Santino Gaudio; Jeffrey B Jackson; Stefano Tamburin; Fabrizio Benedetti Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.003