Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31519047›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical investigation2019

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

Rebecca K Webster, Jeremy Howick, Tammy Hoffmann, Helen Macdonald, Gary S Collins, Jonathan L Rees, Vitaly Napadow, Claire Madigan, Amy Price, Sarah E Lamb and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

15 authors.

Rebecca K WebsterUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5136-1098
Jeremy HowickFaculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0280-7206
Tammy HoffmannBond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Helen MacdonaldThe BMJ, London, UK.
Gary S CollinsUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-2316
Jonathan L ReesNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Vitaly NapadowAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Claire MadiganUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Amy PriceUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah E LambUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Felicity L BishopUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Klara BokelmannLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Andrew PapanikitasUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nia RobertsUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrea W M EversLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

Core NIBSP01AT009965 · NCCIH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI NAPADOW, VITALY, ROSEN, BRUCE R · 2018 to 2023
$10.9M
Brain Mechanisms Underlying CBT-Related Reductions in FibromyalgiaR01AR064367 · NIAMS · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI EDWARDS, ROBERT R, NAPADOW, VITALY · 2014 to 2018
$4.0M
Neuroimaging Approaches to Deconstructing Acupuncuture for Chronic PainR01AT007550 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HARRIS, RICHARD E, NAPADOW, VITALY · 2013 to 2019
$3.4M
Optimization of brain-based mechanisms supporting psychosocial aspects of acupuncture therapy - a hyperscanning fMRI studyR33AT009306 · NCCIH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KAPTCHUK, TED, NAPADOW, VITALY · 2018 to 2021
$2.3M
Optimization of brain-based mechanisms supporting psychosocial aspects of acupuncture therapy - a hyperscanning fMRI studyR61AT009306 · NCCIH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KAPTCHUK, TED, NAPADOW, VITALY · 2016 to 2017
$959k
Cancer Research UK 27294NCCIH NIH HHS P01 AT009965NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT007550NCCIH NIH HHS R33 AT009306NCCIH NIH HHS R61 AT009306NIAMS NIH HHS C49297/A27294NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR064367NIH HHS R01-AT007550, R61/R33-AT009306, P01-AT009965
6 · The paper itself

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

Control GroupsPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicChecklistHumansResearch ReportPlacebosplaceboplacebo-controlledreporting standardsshamTIDieRtrial

Identifiers

PMID31519047
PMCPMC6819221

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.