Trial reportJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2011
The quantification of placebo effects within a general model of health care outcomes.
Trial report in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The High-Risk Model of Threat Perception Modulates Learning of Placebo and Nocebo Effects and Functional Somatic Disorders.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Differences between experimental and placebo arms in manual therapy trials: a methodological review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Article
- Effects of mobilisation with movement (MWM) on anatomical and clinical characteristics of chronic ankle instability: a randomised controlled trial protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
- Stories of Growth and Wisdom: A Mixed-Methods Study of People Living Well With Pain.Global advances in health and medicine · 2016Article
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
objectivesThe objective of this study was to test a model of placebo effects in the context of a general model of health care outcomes.
designThe design of this study was a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at The University of Washington Hospital, Seattle, Washington, Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center, Camden, New Jersey, and at the Neurology Center of Fairfax, Fairfax, Virginia. SUBJECTS: One hundred and seventeen (117) patients diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis were enrolled in the study.
interventionSubjects had daily exposure to a pulsing electromagnetic generator. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were the average score of three quality-of-life indices: the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, the Medical Outcomes Study Pain Effects Scale, and the Spasticity Effects Scale.
resultsPlacebo responders scored higher in the personality trait of Absorption compared with nonresponders (p<0.01). Placebo responders were more confident that the sham device was active compared to placebo nonresponders (p<0.009). The two factors of confidence in the treatment and Absorption accurately identified 80% of placebo responders in a discriminant analysis (p<0.0004).
conclusionsPlacebo effects are best understood when integrated in a general model of health care outcomes.
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.