Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12535498›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Placebo treatment versus no treatment.

A Hróbjartsson, P C Gøtzsche

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical trial design in non-invasive brain stimulation psychiatric research.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. How to assess epidemiological studies.Postgraduate medical journal · 2004
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A HróbjartssonThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Department 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark, DK-2100. a.hrobjartsson@cochrane.dk
P C Gøtzsche

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlacebo interventions are often believed to improve patient reported and observer reported outcomes, but this belief is not based on evidence from randomised trials that compare placebo with no treatment.

objectivesTo assess the effect of placebo interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, issue 3, 1998), MEDLINE (Jan 1966 to Dec 1998), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to Dec 1998), Biological Abstracts (Jan 1986 to Dec 1998), PsycLIT (Jan 1887 to Dec 1998). Experts on placebo research were contacted and references in the included trials were read. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsOutcome data were available in 114 out of 130 included trials, investigating 40 clinical conditions. Outcomes were binary in 32 trials (3795 patients) and continuous in 82 (4730 patients). We found no statistically significant pooled effect of placebo in studies with binary outcomes, relative risk 0.95 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.88 to 1.02). The pooled relative risk for subjective (patient reported) outcomes was 0.95 (0.86 to 1.05) and for objective (observer reported) outcomes 0.91 (0.80 to 1.04). There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.03), but no evidence of sample size bias (P = 0.56). We found an overall positive effect of placebo treatments in trials with continuous outcomes, standardised mean difference -0.28 (95 per cent confidence interval -0.38 to -0.19). The standardised mean difference for subjective outcomes was -0.36 (-0.47 to -0.25), whereas no statistically significant effect was found for objective outcomes, standardised mean difference -0.12 (-0.27 to 0.03). There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.001), and evidence of sample size bias (P = 0.05). There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in eight out of nine clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more (nausea, relapse in prevention of smoking and depression, overweight, asthma, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety), but confidence intervals were wide. There was a modest apparent analgesic effect of placebo interventions, standardised mean difference -0.27 (-0.40 to -0.15), but also a substantial risk of bias. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere was no evidence that placebo interventions in general have clinically important effects. A possible moderate effect on subjective continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Indexed as

Placebo EffectHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRefusal to TreatTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.