ReviewJournal of pain research2021
Placebo Effect of Sham Spine Procedures in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allogenic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, multicentre, randomised placebo controlled trial (RESPINE study).Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Trial
- Early pain-response trajectories after basivertebral nerve ablation and their relationship to 12-month clinical outcomes.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- 14. Discogenic Low Back Pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Review
- Justice for Placebo: Placebo Effect in Clinical Trials and Everyday Practice.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Contextual effects: how to, and how not to, quantify them.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Review
- A novel computational approach to pain perception modelling within a Bayesian framework using quantitative sensory testing.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- "To the Editor of the Journal of Pain Research" [Letter].Journal of pain research · 2021Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature lacks information about the characteristics of the placebo effect following sham spine procedures for chronic low back pain. We aim to evaluate the effect using pain score data from the sham arms of published trials.
methodsRelevant trials were selected and reviewed. Baseline and post-procedure pain scores were collected. Each follow up pain score was considered an episode and compared to its baseline for significance. Patients and episodes were pooled and analyzed using three parameters: patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] and Short Form-36 [SF]), anatomical targets (disc, facet, sacroiliac joint [SIJ], ramus communicans nerve [RCN], basivertebral nerve [BVN], and caudal) and follow up periods (early: 0-2, intermediate: >2-4 and late: >4-6) in months. The percentage of pooled patients in the episodes that had significant reduction in pain scores was termed placebo effect. The outcome was defining the magnitude of the placebo effect and determining if it was influenced by the three parameters.
resultsSeventeen studies that reported 535 patients and 55 pain scoring episodes were considered eligible. Significant reduction in pain scores was reported in 21 episodes. The overall placebo effect among the patients during the studied period was 53.2%. The rate ranged according to PROMs from 42.4% to 72.1%, anatomical targets from 11.1% to 100% and follow up periods from 47.9% to 59%. The placebo effect differed significantly between the various domains in the three parameters.
conclusionPlacebo effect was observed in nearly half of the patients during the first 6 months following a sham spine procedure. The effect was influenced by utilized PROMs, anatomical target and follow up period. The findings should be considered in the design of new sham spine procedure trials. Further research is required to delineate the effect of bias on the findings.
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.