ArticlePloS one2013
Placebo use in the United kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 5 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta analysis of open label placebo effects in chronic musculoskeletal pain.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evidencing general acceptability of open-label placebo use for tackling overtreatment in primary care: a mixed methods study.BMC medicine · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Effect of Briefing on Acupuncture Treatment Outcome Expectations, Pain, and Adverse Side Effects Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Two-year follow-up results of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or discogenic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.International journal of medical sciences · 2014Trial
- Understanding and leveraging placebo and nocebo effects in perioperative care: a cross-sectional survey of German-speaking anesthesiologists.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Updating UK clinical guidelines to incorporate the placebo effect in peri-operative care: challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Around Colorectal Cancer Screening and Risk Among 20-49 Year Olds.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Prescriptions of Essentially Placebo Treatments Among General Practitioners in 21 Countries.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Review
- Public and professional attitudes towards deceptive and open-label placebo in functional neurological disorder and wider neurological practice.BMJ neurology open · 2025Article
- Noble Humbug? Hard and soft laws on clinical placebo use.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Placebo: a brief updated review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2022Review
- Phasic firing of dopaminergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area triggers peripheral immune responses.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Elderly Patients with Spinal Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSurveys in various countries suggest 17% to 80% of doctors prescribe 'placebos' in routine practice, but prevalence of placebo use in UK primary care is unknown.
methodsWe administered a web-based questionnaire to a representative sample of UK general practitioners. Following surveys conducted in other countries we divided placebos into 'pure' and 'impure'. 'Impure' placebos are interventions with clear efficacy for certain conditions but are prescribed for ailments where their efficacy is unknown, such as antibiotics for suspected viral infections. 'Pure' placebos are interventions such as sugar pills or saline injections without direct pharmacologically active ingredients for the condition being treated. We initiated the survey in April 2012. Two reminders were sent and electronic data collection closed after 4 weeks.
resultsWe surveyed 1715 general practitioners and 783 (46%) completed our questionnaire. Our respondents were similar to those of all registered UK doctors suggesting our results are generalizable. 12% (95% CI 10 to 15) of respondents used pure placebos while 97% (95% CI 96 to 98) used impure placebos at least once in their career. 1% of respondents used pure placebos, and 77% (95% CI 74 to 79) used impure placebos at least once per week. Most (66% for pure, 84% for impure) respondents stated placebos were ethical in some circumstances. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Placebo use is common in primary care but questions remain about their benefits, harms, costs, and whether they can be delivered ethically. Further research is required to investigate ethically acceptable and cost-effective placebo interventions.
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.