Lay attitudes toward deception in medicine: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018
   Pooled it
2. Study design considerations in clinical trials testing transcutaneous stimulation for spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2026
   Review
3. Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?PloS one · 2021
   Article
4. [Placebos and placeboids in clinical practice: conceptual and ethical considerations].Der Nervenarzt · 2020
   Review
5. Lay People's Ethical Attitudes To Placebo Treatment: A Q-Methodology Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2019
   Article
6. Against Offering "Faux Codes": An Ethically Problematic Workaround.The Hastings Center report
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as