SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical investigation2019
Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of variance ratios to assess heterogeneity of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A meta-epidemiological study.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Placebo setting in trials of traditional Chinese medicine nursing techniques: a systematic critical reviewBMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Interventions for the Management of Sleep Problems in People With Fibromyalgia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Arthritis care & research · 2025Pooled it
- Influence of placebo effect in mental disorders research: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating Intervention Reporting in Nursing Journal RCTs Using the TIDieR Checklist: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Developing evidence-based guidelines for describing potential benefits and harms within patient information leaflets/sheets (PILs) that inform and do not cause harm (PrinciPILs).Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Poor consideration of tissue loading in randomised trials of MSC interventions for tendon pathology: A systematic review using the TIDieR framework.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Comment on Takakura et al. Acupuncture for Japanese Katakori (Chronic Neck Pain): A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Commentary on Kraiss et al.: Read the label - improving the applicability of systematic reviews by coding and analysis of intervention elements.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Article
- TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls.PLoS medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham-controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham-controlled trials citing TIDieR.
resultsWe identified 94 placebo/sham-controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well-cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR's first publication, six placebo-controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.
conclusionsPlacebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.
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.