Literature DB >> 30073258

Placebo Effects on the Neurologic Pain Signature: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data.

Matthias Zunhammer1, Ulrike Bingel1, Tor D Wager2.   

Abstract

Importance: Placebo effects reduce pain and contribute to clinical analgesia, but after decades of research, it remains unclear whether placebo treatments mainly affect nociceptive processes or other processes associated with pain evaluation. Objective: We conducted a systematic, participant-level meta-analysis to test the effect of placebo treatments on pain-associated functional neuroimaging responses in the neurologic pain signature (NPS), a multivariate brain pattern tracking nociceptive pain. Data Sources: Medline (PubMed) was searched from inception to May 2015; the search was augmented with results from previous meta-analyses and expert recommendations. Study Selection: Eligible studies were original investigations that were published in English in peer-reviewed journals and that involved functional neuroimaging of the human brain with evoked pain delivered under stimulus intensity-matched placebo and control conditions. The authors of all eligible studies were contacted and asked to provide single-participant data. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were collected between December 2015 and November 2017 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data guidelines. Results were summarized across participants and studies in a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main, a priori outcome was NPS response; pain reports were assessed as a secondary outcome.
Results: We obtained data from 20 of 28 identified eligible studies, resulting in a total sample size of 603 healthy individuals. The NPS responses to painful stimulation compared with baseline conditions were positive in 575 participants (95.4%), with a very large effect size (g = 2.30 [95% CI, 1.92 to 2.69]), confirming its sensitivity to nociceptive pain in this sample. Placebo treatments showed significant behavioral outcomes on pain ratings in 17 of 20 studies (85%) and in the combined sample (g = -0.66 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.53]). However, placebo effects on the NPS response were significant in only 3 of 20 studies (15%) and were very small in the combined sample (g = -0.08 [95% CI, -0.15 to -0.01]). Similarly, analyses restricted to studies with low risk of bias (g = -0.07 [95% CI, -0.15 to 0.00]) indicated very small effects, and analyses of just placebo responders (g = -0.22 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.11]) indicated small effects, as well. Conclusions and Relevance: Placebo treatments have moderate analgesic effects on pain reports. The very small effects on NPS, a validated measure that tracks levels of nociceptive pain, indicate that placebo treatments affect pain via brain mechanisms largely independent of effects on bottom-up nociceptive processing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30073258      PMCID: PMC6248115          DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Neurol        ISSN: 2168-6149            Impact factor:   18.302


  75 in total

1.  Mechanisms of placebo analgesia: rACC recruitment of a subcortical antinociceptive network.

Authors:  U Bingel; J Lorenz; E Schoell; C Weiller; C Büchel
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Brain activity associated with expectancy-enhanced placebo analgesia as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jian Kong; Randy L Gollub; Ilana S Rosman; J Megan Webb; Mark G Vangel; Irving Kirsch; Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-01-11       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Neural mechanisms mediating positive and negative treatment expectations in visceral pain: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study on placebo and nocebo effects in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Julia Schmid; Nina Theysohn; Florian Ga; Sven Benson; Carolin Gramsch; Michael Forsting; Elke R Gizewski; Sigrid Elsenbruch
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 6.961

4.  Quantitative prediction of subjective pain intensity from whole-brain fMRI data using Gaussian processes.

Authors:  Andre Marquand; Matthew Howard; Michael Brammer; Carlton Chu; Steven Coen; Janaina Mourão-Miranda
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Expectation requires treatment to boost pain relief: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Lieven A Schenk; Christian Sprenger; Stephan Geuter; Christian Büchel
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  Placebo-induced changes in spinal cord pain processing.

Authors:  Dagfinn Matre; Kenneth L Casey; Stein Knardahl
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-01-11       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Placebo analgesia and its opioidergic regulation suggest that empathy for pain is grounded in self pain.

Authors:  Markus Rütgen; Eva-Maria Seidel; Giorgia Silani; Igor Riečanský; Allan Hummer; Christian Windischberger; Predrag Petrovic; Claus Lamm
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Neuroimaging-based biomarker discovery and validation.

Authors:  Choong-Wan Woo; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.926

9.  Somatic and vicarious pain are represented by dissociable multivariate brain patterns.

Authors:  Anjali Krishnan; Choong-Wan Woo; Luke J Chang; Luka Ruzic; Xiaosi Gu; Marina López-Solà; Philip L Jackson; Jesús Pujol; Jin Fan; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 10.  Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs.

Authors:  Daniël Lakens
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-11-26
View more
  43 in total

1.  Applying the Power of the Mind in Acupuncture Treatment of Pain.

Authors:  Jian Kong; Maya Nicole Eshel
Journal:  Med Acupunct       Date:  2020-12-16

2.  The Placebo Effect in Pain Therapies.

Authors:  Luana Colloca
Journal:  Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 13.820

Review 3.  Neocortical circuits in pain and pain relief.

Authors:  Linette Liqi Tan; Rohini Kuner
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 4.  Composite Pain Biomarker Signatures for Objective Assessment and Effective Treatment.

Authors:  Irene Tracey; Clifford J Woolf; Nick A Andrews
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 17.173

5.  The emotional brain: Fundamental questions and strategies for future research.

Authors:  Alexander J Shackman; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Pain-Evoked Reorganization in Functional Brain Networks.

Authors:  Weihao Zheng; Choong-Wan Woo; Zhijun Yao; Pavel Goldstein; Lauren Y Atlas; Mathieu Roy; Liane Schmidt; Anjali Krishnan; Marieke Jepma; Bin Hu; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 7.  Deconstructing biomarkers for chronic pain: context- and hypothesis-dependent biomarker types in relation to chronic pain.

Authors:  Diane Reckziegel; Etienne Vachon-Presseau; Bogdan Petre; Thomas J Schnitzer; Marwan N Baliki; A Vania Apkarian
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 8.  Representation, Pattern Information, and Brain Signatures: From Neurons to Neuroimaging.

Authors:  Philip A Kragel; Leonie Koban; Lisa Feldman Barrett; Tor D Wager
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  The neural processes of acquiring placebo effects through observation.

Authors:  Lieven A Schenk; Luana Colloca
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Threat Prediction from Schemas as a Source of Bias in Pain Perception.

Authors:  Manyoel Lim; Christopher O'Grady; Douglas Cane; Amita Goyal; Mary Lynch; Steven Beyea; Javeria Ali Hashmi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.