Literature DB >> 3365327

Double-blind versus deceptive administration of a placebo.

I Kirsch1, L J Weixel.   

Abstract

Subjects were given varying doses of a placebo, consisting of decaffeinated coffee, with double-blind or deceptive instructions. Deceptive administration simulated clinical situations in that subjects were led to believe that they were receiving an active drug. In contrast, subjects in double-blind conditions were aware that they might receive a placebo. Double-blind and deceptive administration of the placebo produced different, and in some instances, opposite effects on pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, and subjective mood. Deceptive administration produced an increase in pulse rate, whereas double-blind administration did not. A theoretically predicted curvilinear effect on systolic blood pressure, alertness, tension, and certainty of having consumed caffeine was confirmed with deceptive administration, but not with double-blind administration. Double-blind administration produced curves in the opposite direction on each of these variables. The effects of the placebo on motor performance varied as a function of subject's beliefs about the effects of caffeine. These data challenge the validity of double-blind experimental designs and suggest that this common method of drug assessment may lead to spurious conclusions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3365327     DOI: 10.1037//0735-7044.102.2.319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Neurosci        ISSN: 0735-7044            Impact factor:   1.912


  49 in total

1.  Expected effect of caffeine on motor performance predicts the type of response to placebo.

Authors:  M Fillmore; M Vogel-Sprott
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Preventing motor training through nocebo suggestions.

Authors:  Antonella Pollo; Elisa Carlino; Lene Vase; Fabrizio Benedetti
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Scientific tools, fake treatments, or triggers for psychological healing: how clinical trial participants conceptualise placebos.

Authors:  Felicity L Bishop; Eric E Jacobson; Jessica R Shaw; Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Expectations and placebo response: a laboratory investigation into the role of somatic focus.

Authors:  Andrew L Geers; Suzanne G Helfer; Paul E Weiland; Kristin Kosbab
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2005-12-23

Review 5.  Implications of placebo theory for clinical research and practice in pain management.

Authors:  C Peck; G Coleman
Journal:  Theor Med       Date:  1991-09

6.  Effects of expectation and caffeine on arousal, well-being, and reaction time.

Authors:  Rainer Schneider; Mauritz Grüner; Alexandra Heiland; Martina Keller; Zuzana Kujanová; Martin Peper; Maximilian Riegl; Stefan Schmidt; Petra Volz; Harald Walach
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2006

7.  Do double-blind studies with informed consent yield externally valid results? An empirical test.

Authors:  I Kirsch; M J Rosadino
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  Spinal Manipulation Vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jay K Ruddock; Hannah Sallis; Andy Ness; Rachel E Perry
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-05-25

9.  The expected drug and its expected effect interact to determine placebo responses to alcohol and caffeine.

Authors:  M T Fillmore; L E Mulvihill; M Vogel-Sprott
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 4.530

10.  Expectancy and the Treatment of Depression: A Review of Experimental Methodology and Effects on Patient Outcome.

Authors:  Bret R Rutherford; Tor D Wager; Steven P Roose
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rev       Date:  2010-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.