ReviewNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2007
Placebo-controlled procedural trials for neurological conditions.
Review in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translational Considerations for Injectable Biomaterials and Bioscaffolds to Repair and Regenerate Brain Tissue.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Advances and New Therapies in Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The ethics of sham surgery on research subjects with cognitive impairments that affect decision-making capacity.Contemporary clinical trials · 2010Article
- Placebo effects in neurological diseases.Journal of medicine and lifeReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neurological disease has been a central focus in the ongoing ethical debate over the use of invasive placebo controls, especially sham surgery. The risk to research subjects and necessary use of deception involved in these procedures must be balanced against the methodological need to control for bias and the placebo effect. We review a framework formulated for the ethical assessment of sham surgery in the context of research evaluating novel procedures for neurological conditions. Special issues raised include the growing evidence of expectation and conditioning effects in a number of neurological diseases, the escalating scale of risk from different types of invasive placebo interventions, and the increasing use of cross-over designs, which allow a switch from placebo to active intervention without additional procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.