Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24780622›Full record

SynthesisPain2014

The magnitude of nocebo effects in pain: a meta-analysis.

Gitte Laue Petersen, Nanna Brix Finnerup, Luana Colloca, Martina Amanzio, Donald D Price, Troels Staehelin Jensen, Lene Vase

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pain, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gitte Laue PetersenDepartment of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Danish Pain Research Center, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA Department of Psychology, University of Turin, National Institute of Neuroscience (INN), Turin, Italy Division of Neuroscience, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Nanna Brix Finnerup
Luana Colloca
Martina Amanzio
Donald D Price
Troels Staehelin Jensen
Lene Vase

Funding

Mechanisms of pain and placebo analgesiaZIAAT000019 · NCCIH · NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMPLEMENTARY & INTEGRATIVE HEALTH · PI GRILLON, CHRISTIAN · 2012 to 2014
$1.3M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 AT999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The investigation of nocebo effects is evolving, and a few literature reviews have emerged, although so far without quantifying such effects. This meta-analysis investigated nocebo effects in pain. We searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register with the term "nocebo." Only studies that investigated nocebo effects as the effects that followed the administration of an inert treatment along with verbal suggestions of symptom worsening and that included a no-treatment control condition were eligible. Ten studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d and Hedges' g. The overall magnitude of the nocebo effect was moderate to large (lowest g=0.62 [0.24-1.01] and highest g=1.03 [0.63-1.43]) and highly variable (range of g=-0.43 to 4.05). The magnitudes and range of effect sizes was similar to those of placebo effects (d=0.81) in mechanistic studies. In studies in which nocebo effects were induced by a combination of verbal suggestions and conditioning, the effect size was larger (lowest g=0.76 [0.39-1.14] and highest g=1.17 [0.52-1.81]) than in studies in which nocebo effects were induced by verbal suggestions alone (lowest g=0.64 [-0.25 to 1.53] and highest g=0.87 [0.40-1.34]). These findings are similar to those in the placebo literature. As the magnitude of the nocebo effect is variable and sometimes large, this meta-analysis demonstrates the importance of minimizing nocebo effects in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Nocebo EffectHumansHyperalgesiaPainPain MeasurementConditioningMagnitudeNoceboPainPlaceboVerbal suggestion

Identifiers

PMID24780622
PMCPMC4213146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.