SynthesisPloS one2018
How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effects of an open-label placebo intervention on reactions to social exclusion in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Open-Label Placebo Trial among Japanese Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Pain research & management · 2020Trial
- Article
- Informing the patient of the placebo option: an ethical necessity likely to reduce inappropriate psychotropic prescriptions?Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Placebo in Functional Neurological Disorders: Promise and Controversy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prescriptions of Essentially Placebo Treatments Among General Practitioners in 21 Countries.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The 18th international workshop on osteoarthritis imaging. Structure and pain: Where are we today?Osteoarthritis imaging · 2025Review
- Noble Humbug? Hard and soft laws on clinical placebo use.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A dose of doubt: a qualitative study on placebo regulations.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- What Happens to the Principles of Evidence-Based Practice When Clinicians Become Educators? A Case Study of the Learning Styles Neuromyth.Medical science educator · 2023Article
- Harnessing placebo: Lessons from psychedelic science.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- The Biology of Placebo and Nocebo Effects on Experimental and Chronic Pain: State of the Art.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Placebo stimulates neuroplasticity in depression: implications for clinical practice and research.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Placebo: a brief updated review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2022Review
- Open-Label Placebo Administration Decreases Pain in Elderly Patients With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis - A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Treating Pain With Open-Label Placebos: A Qualitative Study With Post-Surgical Pain Patients.The journal of pain · 2021Article
- Myths and Truths about Placebo Effect in Rehabilitation for Musculoskeletal Pain.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- Testing and Prescribing Vitamin B12 in Swiss General Practice: A Survey among Physicians.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Harnessing Placebo Effects in Primary Care: Using the Person-Based Approach to Develop an Online Intervention to Enhance Practitioners' Communication of Clinical Empathy and Realistic Optimism During Consultations.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold).
methodsWe searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsOf 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions.
conclusionHigh prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.
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.