Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26921852›Full record

ReviewEpilepsy research2016

Response to placebo in clinical epilepsy trials--Old ideas and new insights.

Daniel M Goldenholz, Shira R Goldenholz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epilepsy research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Dogs as a Natural Animal Model of Epilepsy.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Daniel M GoldenholzClinical Epilepsy Section, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, USA. Electronic address: daniel.goldenholz@nih.gov.
Shira R GoldenholzSilver Spring MD, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 NS999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized placebo-controlled trials are a mainstay of modern clinical epilepsy research; the success or failure of innovative therapies depends on proving superiority to a placebo. Consequently, understanding what drives response to placebo (including the "placebo effect") may facilitate evaluation of new therapies. In this review, part one will explore observations about placebos specific to epilepsy, including the relatively higher placebo response in children, apparent increase in placebo response over the past several decades, geographic variation in placebo effect, relationship to baseline epilepsy characteristics, influence of nocebo on clinical trials, the possible increase in (SUDEP) in placebo arms of trials, and patterns that placebo responses appear to follow in individual patients. Part two will discuss the principal causes of placebo responses, including regression to the mean, anticipation, classical conditioning, the Hawthorne effect, expectations from symbols, and the natural history of disease. Included in part two will be a brief overview of recent advances using simulations from large datasets that have afforded new insights into causes of epilepsy-related placebo responses. In part three, new developments in study design will be explored, including sequential parallel comparison, two-way enriched design, time to pre-randomization, delayed start, and cohort reduction techniques.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEpilepsyHumansResearch DesignClinical trial.EpilepsyPlacebo effect

Identifiers

PMID26921852
PMCPMC4828269

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.