Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24646924›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Role of conditioning and verbal suggestion in placebo and nocebo effects on itch.

Danielle J P Bartels, Antoinette I M van Laarhoven, Elise A Haverkamp, Oliver H Wilder-Smith, A Rogier T Donders, Henriët van Middendorp, Peter C M van de Kerkhof, Andrea W M Evers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The Placebo Effect in Psychosis: Why It Matters and How to Measure It.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Danielle J P BartelsUnit of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Antoinette I M van LaarhovenUnit of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Elise A HaverkampDepartment of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Oliver H Wilder-SmithDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain, and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A Rogier T DondersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Henriët van MiddendorpUnit of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Peter C M van de KerkhofDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Andrea W M EversUnit of Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Placebo and nocebo effects are known to play a key role in treatment effects in a wide variety of conditions. These effects have frequently been investigated with regard to pain and also in other physical sensations, but have hardly been investigated with regard to itch. In addition, neither in pain nor in any other physical sensation, the single and combined contribution of the expectancy mechanisms of conditioning and verbal suggestion have ever been investigated in both placebo and nocebo effects within one design. For the first time, the role of verbal suggestion and conditioning in placebo and nocebo effects on itch was experimentally investigated. Expectations about itch stimuli were induced in healthy subjects by verbal suggestion, conditioning, or a combination of both procedures, and compared with a control group without expectation induction. Itch was induced electrically by means of quantitative sensory testing. Significant placebo and nocebo effects were induced in the group in which combined procedures of conditioning and verbal suggestion were applied in comparison with the control group. The conditioning and verbal suggestion procedures applied individually did not induce significant placebo and nocebo effects when compared with the control group. The results of this study extend existing evidence on different physical sensations, like pain, by showing that also for itch, the combination of conditioning and verbal suggestion is most promising in inducing both placebo and nocebo effects. More research on placebo and nocebo effects at a perceptive and neurobiological level is warranted to further elucidate the common and specific mechanisms underlying placebo and nocebo effects on itch and other physical sensations.

Indexed as

Conditioning, PsychologicalSuggestionAdolescentAdultCase-Control StudiesElectric StimulationFemaleHumansMaleNocebo EffectPruritusSpeech

Identifiers

PMID24646924
PMCPMC3960153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.