Literature DB >> 30179953

Psychologic Factors Do Not Affect Placebo Responses After Upper Extremity Injections: A Randomized Trial.

Tom J Crijns1, Teun Teunis, Neal C Chen, David Ring.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies on how psychologic factors influence the placebo effect have shown conflicting results in an experimental setting. Pessimists are more likely to experience a nocebo effect (feel worse after an inert intervention), whereas other studies suggest that patients with more symptoms of depression or anxiety or greater neuroticism have a greater response to a placebo. This is important because treatment benefits are potentiated by placebo effects, and optimal utilization of this phenomenon may improve clinical outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What psychologic factors are associated with a decrease in magnitude of limitations (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] score) and pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) after placebo injections for the treatment of painful nontraumatic upper extremity conditions? (2) What psychologic factors are associated with achieving a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in disability and pain intensity?
METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data acquired in two prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of patients with lateral elbow pain, trapeziometacarpal arthrosis, and de Quervain tendinopathy who received a single injection of dexamethasone and lidocaine or lidocaine alone (placebo). One hundred six patients were included between June 2003 and February 2008. Sixty-three patients (59%) received dexamethasone and lidocaine, and we analyzed the subset of 43 patients (41%) who received lidocaine alone. The primary outcomes of interest were the DASH questionnaire and the VAS for pain measured three times: when they received the injection, between 1 and 3 months after the injection, and between 5 and 8 months after the injection. Seven patients missed the first followup visit and 14 patients missed the second visit. Based on previous research, we chose a MCID threshold of 10 for the DASH and a threshold of 1.0 for the VAS score. In bivariate analysis, we accounted for sex, race, marital status, degree, education, work status, pretreatment pain, diagnosis, symptoms of depression (Center of Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale), coping strategies in response to nociception (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and personality traits (measured with the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised score). Variables with p values < 0.10 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable regression models. An a priori power analysis showed that a sample of 43 participants provides 80% statistical power, with α set at 0.05, for a regression with five predictors if the depression score would account for 15% or more of the variability in pain score. We used multiple imputations (imputations = 50) for a total of 66 (8.5%) missing or incomplete questionnaires.
RESULTS: In the final multivariable models, no psychologic factors were associated with a change in DASH score between injection and followup, and no factors were associated with greater decrease in pain intensity. After injection, no psychologic factors were independently associated with achieving a MCID in the DASH and VAS.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that patient factors are less important mediators of the placebo effect than clinician factors. In other words, clinician warmth and competence can help diminish symptoms and limitations of people in various states of mind, even when using inert or ineffective treatments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30179953      PMCID: PMC6259991          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000425

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  27 in total

1.  Reconsidering the role of personality in placebo effects: dispositional optimism, situational expectations, and the placebo response.

Authors:  Andrew L Geers; Suzanne G Helfer; Kristin Kosbab; Paul E Weiland; Sarah J Landry
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Predictors of Upper-Extremity Physical Function in Older Adults.

Authors:  Hugo H Hermanussen; Mariano E Menendez; Neal C Chen; David Ring; Ana-Maria Vranceanu
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2016-10

3.  What Is the Most Useful Questionnaire for Measurement of Coping Strategies in Response to Nociception?

Authors:  Joost T P Kortlever; Stein J Janssen; Marijn M G van Berckel; David Ring; Ana Maria Vranceanu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The association between psychopathology and placebo analgesia in patients with discogenic low back pain.

Authors:  Ajay D Wasan; Ted J Kaptchuk; Gudarz Davar; Robert N Jamison
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.750

5.  The impact of psychological factors on placebo responses in a randomized controlled trial comparing sham device to dummy pill.

Authors:  Suzanne M Bertisch; Anna R T Legedza; Russell S Phillips; Roger B Davis; William B Stason; Rose H Goldman; Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments.

Authors:  Amelia A Sorensen; Daniel Howard; Wen Hui Tan; Jeffrey Ketchersid; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.230

7.  Disability and pain after cortisone versus placebo injection for trapeziometacarpal arthrosis and de Quervain syndrome.

Authors:  Dennis J S Makarawung; Stéphanie J E Becker; Stijn Bekkers; David Ring
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2013-12

8.  Injection of dexamethasone versus placebo for lateral elbow pain: a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Anneluuk Lindenhovius; Marjolijn Henket; Brendan P Gilligan; Santiago Lozano-Calderon; Jesse B Jupiter; David Ring
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.230

9.  The estimation and use of predictions for the assessment of model performance using large samples with multiply imputed data.

Authors:  Angela M Wood; Patrick Royston; Ian R White
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.207

10.  Psychological Factors Associated With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Recovery.

Authors:  Melissa A Christino; Braden C Fleming; Jason T Machan; Robert M Shalvoy
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2016-03-23
View more
  3 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: Psychologic Factors Do Not Affect Placebo Responses After Upper Extremity Injections: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Maryam Farzad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Are Patient Expectations and Illness Perception Associated with Patient-reported Outcomes from Surgical Decompression in de Quervain's Tenosynovitis?

Authors:  Julia Blackburn; Mark J W van der Oest; Neal C Chen; Reinier Feitz; Liron S Duraku; J Michiel Zuidam; Ana-Maria Vranceanu; Ruud W Selles
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  A Conversation with … Ted J. Kaptchuk, Expert in Placebo Effects.

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.