Trial reportPloS one2018
Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modulating Placebo Effects in Clinical Trials: Study Team Briefing to Optimize Drug-Placebo Differences.Clinical and translational science · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Concerns regarding sham-controlled trial of SI joint fusion procedure.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Test-retest and interrater reliability of experimental within-subject variability of pain reports as assessed by the focused analgesia selection test.Pain reports · 2024Article
- [Pharmacological approach to neuropathic pain: past, present and future].Revista de neurologia · 2022Review
- Tibetan Herbal Pain-Relieving Plaster for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Among Cancer Survivors: Study Protocol of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessing Pain Research: A Narrative Review of Emerging Pain Methods, Their Technosocial Implications, and Opportunities for Multidisciplinary Approaches.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Feasibility and acceptability of using smartphone-based EMA to assess patterns of prescription opioid and medical cannabis use among individuals with chronic pain.Internet interventions · 2021Article
- What can be done to control the placebo response in clinical trials? A narrative review.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Review
- Article
- Common Clinical Practice for Low Back Pain Treatment: A Modified Delphi Study.Pain and therapy · 2021Article
- Effects of Pain-Reporting Education Program on Children's Pain Reports-Results From a Randomized Controlled Post-operative Pediatric Pain Trial.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Article
- Validity of the cold pressor test and pain sensitivity questionnaire via online self-administration.PloS one · 2020Article
- Dissociation of Endogenous Pain Inhibition Due to Conditioned Pain Modulation and Placebo in Male Athletes Versus Nonathletes.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Effect of a Vibratory Anesthetic Device on Pain Anticipation and Subsequent Pain Perception Among Patients Undergoing Cutaneous Cancer Removal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA facial plastic surgery · 2019Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analgesic trials frequently fail to demonstrate efficacy of drugs known to be efficacious. Poor pain reporting accuracy is a possible source for this low essay-sensitivity. We report the effects of Accurate-Pain-Reporting-Training (APRT) on the placebo response in a trial of Pregabalin for painful-diabetic-neuropathy. The study was a two-stage randomized, double-blind trial: In Stage-1 (Training) subjects were randomized to APRT or No-Training. The APRT participants received feedback on the accuracy of their pain reports in response to mechanical stimuli, measured by R-square score. In Stage-2 (Evaluation) all subjects entered a placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. Primary (24-h average pain intensity) and secondary (current, 24-h worst, and 24-h walking pain intensity) outcome measures were reported. Fifty-one participants completed the study. APRT patients (n = 28) demonstrated significant (p = 0.036) increases in R-square scores. The APRT group demonstrated significantly (p = 0.018) lower placebo response (0.29 ± 1.21 vs. 1.48 ± 2.21, mean difference ± SD = -1.19±1.73). No relationships were found between the R-square scores and changes in pain intensity in the treatment arm. In summary, our training successfully increased pain reporting accuracy and resulted in a diminished placebo response. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
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.