ReviewDer Nervenarzt2020
[Nocebo, informed consent and doctor-patient communication].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' Perception of Information Provision Regarding Complications in Cardiac Surgery: A Thematic Analysis.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2026Article
- MyCODE: a prospective evaluation of lay-language molecular tumor board protocols in precision oncology.The oncologist · 2026Article
- [Words like medicine-Therapeutic communication in anesthesia].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Review
- "Powerful placebo": A teaching and learning concept addressing placebo and nocebo effects in competency-based communication training.GMS journal for medical education · 2024Article
- [Chronic eye pain].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- The Influence of Preoperative Mood and Treatment Expectations on Early Postsurgical Acute Pain After a Total Knee Replacement.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Negative previous experiences (conditioning), observational learning and expectations can trigger nocebo effects. They are responsible for a substantial proportion of the side effects of medical treatment, and are induced primarily by risk information for informed consent. This has been demonstrated in studies on patient groups with or without modified medical information. Drug trials in the field of neurology and psychiatry have regularly revealed side effects and drop-out also in placebo groups. The underlying neurobiological mechanisms were experimentally investigated especially for nocebo-induced hyperalgesia, whereby the specifically involved regions of the brain could be identified by functional imaging as well as changes in the dopamine, endorphin and cholecystokinin systems. Nocebo effects are specific, i.e. they are closely related to patient information and can induce or aggravate exactly the symptoms addressed. Nevertheless, informed consent is an essential part of doctor-patient communication; however, information on risks can be markedly less damaging when unnecessary repetitions are avoided, misunderstandings are recognized or resolved and several different options are given. In addition, risks should always be named together with positive aspects, such as the advantages of the appropriate treatment, the prophylactic measures applied or the early detection and treatment of developing side effects. The best protection against harm caused by information on risks is a trustful doctor-patient relationship. Poor knowledge of nocebo effects or lack of countermeasures constitute a serious threat to patients and according to the current state of knowledge could be rated as medical malpractice.
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.