Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30361674›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2018

Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice.

Evrydiki Kravvariti, George D Kitas, Dimos D Mitsikostas, Petros P Sfikakis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Risk factors associated with nocebo effects: A review of reviews.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Maximizing the success of biosimilar implementation.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Evrydiki KravvaritiFirst Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Joint Rheumatology Program, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4330-3266
George D KitasClinical Research Unit, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK.
Dimos D MitsikostasFirst Department of Neurology, Aeginition Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Petros P SfikakisFirst Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Joint Rheumatology Program, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece. psfikakis@med.uoa.gr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nocebo effects are noxious reactions to therapeutic interventions that occur because of negative expectations of the patient. In the past decade, neurobiological data have revealed specific neural pathways induced by nocebos (that is, interventions that cause nocebo effects), as well as the associated mechanisms and predisposing factors of nocebo effects. Epidemiological data suggest that nocebos can have a notable effect on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and health-care policy. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) indicate that withdrawal of treatment by placebo-arm participants owing to adverse events is common; a proportion of these events could be nocebo effects. Moreover, in large-scale, open-label studies of patients with RMDs who transition from bio-originator to biosimilar therapeutics, biosimilar retention rates were much lower than in previous double-blind switch RCTs. This discrepancy suggests that in addition to the lack of response in some patients because of intrinsic differences between the drugs, nocebos might have an important role in low biosimilar retention, thus increasing the need for awareness and early identification of nocebo effects by rheumatologists and allied health-care professionals.

Indexed as

Nocebo EffectBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsDouble-Blind MethodHealth PolicyHumansMedication AdherenceMeta-Analysis as TopicMusculoskeletal DiseasesRheumatic DiseasesTreatment OutcomeBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.