Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
Placebo effects and the common cold: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The placebo response of injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists vs. oral DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- A manual acupuncture treatment attenuates common cold and its symptoms: a case series report from South Korea.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2016Trial
- Association of interleukin-8 and neutrophils with nasal symptom severity during acute respiratory infection.Journal of medical virology · 2015Trial
- Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey for Kids: Validation of an Illness-specific Quality of Life Instrument.Pediatric research · 2021Article
- Investigation of the natural supplement IQP-AS-119 for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections in marathon race participants: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Improving natural product research translation: From source to clinical trial.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020Article
- Contextually Aided Recovery (CARe): a scientific theory for innate healing.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2017Article
- Validation of the Nasal Mucus Index, a novel measurement of acute respiratory infection severity.American journal of rhinology & allergy · 2016Article
- The Challenge of Reproducibility and Accuracy in Nutrition Research: Resources and Pitfalls.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2016Review
- Rasch Analysis of The WURSS-21 Dimensional Validation and Assessment of Invariance.Journal of lung, pulmonary & respiratory research · 2016Article
- Is acupuncture no more than a placebo? Extensive discussion required about possible bias.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2015Article
- Item reduction of the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-21) leads to the WURSS-11.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2014Article
- Detection of viral and bacterial pathogens in acute respiratory infections.The Journal of infection · 2014Article
- When and why placebo-prescribing is acceptable and unacceptable: a focus group study of patients' views.PloS one · 2014Article
- Can patients or clinicians predict the severity or duration of an acute upper respiratory infection?Family practice · 2013Article
- Herbal Medicine in Primary Healthcare in Germany: The Patient's Perspective.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2012Article
- Riding a Tiger: Maximizing Effects of Manual Therapies for Pelvic Pain.Journal of women's health physical therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe wanted to determine whether the severity and duration of illness caused by the common cold are influenced by randomized assignment to open-label pills, compared with conventional double-blind allocation to active and placebo pills, compared with no pills at all.
methodsWe undertook a randomized controlled trial among a population with new-onset common cold. Study participants were allocated to 4 parallel groups: (1) those receiving no pills, (2) those blinded to placebo, (3) those blinded to echinacea, and (4) those given open-label echinacea. Primary outcomes were illness duration and area-under-the-curve global severity. Secondary outcomes included neutrophil count and interleukin 8 levels from nasal wash at intake and 2 days later.
resultsOf 719 randomized study participants, 2 were lost and 4 exited early. Participants were 64% female, 88% white, and aged 12 to 80 years. Mean illness duration for each group was 7.03 days for those in the no-pill group, 6.87 days for those blinded to placebo, 6.34 days for those blinded to echinacea, and 6.76 days for those in the open-label echinacea group. Mean global severity scores for the 4 groups were no pills, 286; blinded to placebo, 264; blinded to echinacea, 236; and open-label echinacea, 258. Between-group differences were not statistically significant. Comparing the no-pill with blinded to placebo groups, differences (95% confidence interval [CI]) were -0.16 days (95% CI, -0.90 to 0.58 days) for illness duration and -22 severity points (95% CI, -70 to 26 points) for global severity. Comparing the group blinded to echinacea with the open-label echinacea group, differences were 0.42 days (95% CI, -0.28 to 1.12 days) and 22 severity points (95% CI, -19 to 63 points). Median change in interleukin 8 concentration and neutrophil cell count, respectively by group, were 30 pg/mL and 1 cell for the no-pill group, 39 pg/mL and 1 cell for the group binded to placebo, 58 pg/mL and 2 cells for the group blinded to echinacea, and 70 pg/mL and 1 cell for the group with open-label echinacea, also not statistically significant. Among the 120 participants who at intake rated echinacea's effectiveness as greater than 50 on a 100-point scale for which 100 is extremely effective, illness duration was 2.58 days shorter (95% CI, -4.47 to -0.68 days) in those blinded to placebo rather than no pill, and mean global severity score was 26% lower but not significantly different (-97.0, 95% CI, -249.8 to 55.8 points). In this subgroup, neither duration nor severity differed significantly between the group blinded to echinacea and the open-label echinacea group.
conclusionsParticipants randomized to the no-pill group tended to have longer and more severe illnesses than those who received pills. For the subgroup who believed in echinacea and received pills, illnesses were substantively shorter and less severe, regardless of whether the pills contained echinacea. These findings support the general idea that beliefs and feelings about treatments may be important and perhaps should be taken into consideration when making medical decisions.
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.