Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32956344›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls.

Jeremy Howick, Rebecca K Webster, Jonathan L Rees, Richard Turner, Helen Macdonald, Amy Price, Andrea W M Evers, Felicity Bishop, Gary S Collins, Klara Bokelmann and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Jeremy HowickUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0280-7206
Rebecca K WebsterUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5136-1098
Jonathan L ReesUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1818-5800
Richard TurnerPublic Library of Science, San Francisco, California, United States of America and Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9692-4360
Helen MacdonaldThe BMJ, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8755-9314
Amy PriceUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Andrea W M EversLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0090-5091
Felicity BishopUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8737-6662
Gary S CollinsUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2772-2316
Klara BokelmannLeiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sally HopewellUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
André KnottnerusMaastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8159-4696
Sarah LambUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4349-7195
Claire MadiganUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6782-0017
Vitaly NapadowHarvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Andrew N PapanikitasUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4163-4873
Tammy HoffmannBond University, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5210-8548

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 16895Cancer Research UK 27294Cancer Research UK C49297/A27294Department of HealthNCCIH NIH HHS P01 AT009965NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT007550NCCIH NIH HHS R33 AT009306NCCIH NIH HHS R61 AT009306NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR064367
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlacebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions. METHODS AND

findingsWe developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.

conclusionsWe encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Indexed as

ChecklistHumansPlacebosResearch DesignResearch PersonnelResearch ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID32956344
PMCPMC7505446

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.