Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32211987›Full record

ReviewWiener klinische Wochenschrift2020

Medical practice and placebo response: an inseparable bond?

Sandra Jilch, Ruken Sel, Shahrokh F Shariat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Sandra JilchMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. n1104225@students.meduniwien.ac.at.
Ruken SelMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Shahrokh F ShariatMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The history of medicine and the history of placebo are closely intertwined. To understand placebo and its effects this article gives a brief overview about its history, the possible mechanisms of action and its counterpart, nocebo.The Catholic Church used placebo around the sixteenth century for the separation from real and incorrect exorcisms, but it needed Henry Beecher during World War II to quantify the placebo effect as control arm in well-designed studies.Until today the different mechanisms of action of placebo remain poorly researched. Understanding them would allow its effect to be modulated to better serve in research and clinical settings. Expectation, psychosocial context and conditioning play a significant role in the effect size and amplitude.The counterpart, nocebo, is even less investigated, even it is commonly observed as adverse effects during medical treatments.Conclusion: Placebo and nocebo are both underestimated and underresearched in their value. Through further investigation doctors could strengthen the placebo response and prevent adverse effects to help their patients at low cost. These techniques would benefit the patient-doctor relationship, which is the alter of a trust-based successful therapy.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPlacebo EffectHumansMaleNocebo EffectPainPhysician-Patient RelationsMedicineNoceboPlaceboPlacebo effectPlacebo history

Identifiers

PMID32211987
PMCPMC7253381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.