Trial reportPloS one2021
Providing open-label placebos remotely-A randomized controlled trial in allergic rhinitis.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of expectations and tailored feedback on the open-label Placebo effect.Journal of health psychology · 2026Trial
- Open-label placebos enhance test performance and reduce anxiety in learner drivers: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of effects of open-label placebo compared to double-blind placebo and treatment-as-usual on symptoms of allergic rhinitis.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Imaginary pills and open-label placebos can reduce test anxiety by means of placebo mechanisms.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Lay perspectives of the open-label placebo rationale: a qualitative study of participants in an experimental trial.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Review
- Effects of open-label placebos and self-monitoring in skin-picking disorder: a randomized crossover trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hope in Medicine Scale.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2024Article
- Placebo and the law of identification.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- The roles of expectation, comparator, administration route, and population in open-label placebo effects: a network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Open-Label Placebo Effects on Psychological and Physical Well-Being: A Conceptual Replication Study.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2022Article
- Correction: Providing open-label placebos remotely-A randomized controlled trial in allergic rhinitis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Can the Open Label Placebo Rationale Be Optimized?Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlacebos can reduce physical symptoms even when provided with full honesty and disclosure. Yet, the precise mechanisms underlying the effects of "open-label placebos" (OLPs) have remained subject of debate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether OLPs are similarly effective when provided remotely, as is sometimes required e.g. in the current COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsIn a randomized-controlled trial, we examined the effects of OLP plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone on symptom reduction in people with allergic rhinitis (N = 54) over the course of two weeks. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was provided remotely (i.e. sent via postal service). To investigate the potential influence of the clinical encounter on the effects of OLP, we manipulated the perception of the virtual clinical encounter, both with respect to verbal and nonverbal factors (augmented vs. limited encounter).
resultsThe results of the manipulation check confirmed that the augmented clinical encounter was evaluated more positively than the limited encounter, in terms of perceived warmth of the provider. Participants from all treatment groups showed significant symptom reduction from baseline to two weeks later, but OLP had no incremental effect over TAU. Participants benefitted more from OLP when they did not take any other medication against allergic symptoms than when taking medication on demand. When controlling for baseline symptoms, a significant treatment by encounter interaction was found, pointing to greater symptom improvement in the OLP group when the encounter was augmented, whereas the control group improved more when the encounter was limited. DISCUSSION: The study demonstrates that providing OLP and enhancing the encounter remotely is possible, but their effectiveness might be lower in comparison to previous studies relying on physical patient-provider interaction. The study raises questions for future research about the potential and challenges of remote placebo studies and virtual clinical encounters. The study has been registered as a clinical trial at ISRCTN (record number: 39018).
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.