Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262315›Full record

Trial reportPain2022

Observing treatment outcomes in other patients can elicit augmented placebo effects on pain treatment: a double-blinded randomized clinical trial with patients with chronic low back pain.

Marie Schwartz, Laura-Marie Fischer, Corinna Bläute, Jan Stork, Luana Colloca, Christian Zöllner, Regine Klinger

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pain, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marie SchwartzZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7164-2527
Laura-Marie FischerZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Corinna BläuteZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jan StorkZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3493-1490
Luana CollocaUniversity of Maryland School of Nursing & School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6503-4709
Christian ZöllnerZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Regine KlingerZentrum für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0944-4631
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

Neural correlates of hypoalgesia driven by observationR01AT010333 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI COLLOCA, LUANA · 2019 to 2023
$3.7M
NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT010333
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractClinical research on social observational learning (SoL) as an underlying mechanism for inducing expectancy and eliciting analgesic placebo effects is lacking. This double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial investigated the influence of SoL on medication-augmenting placebo effects in 44 patients with chronic low back pain. Our hypothesis was that observing positive drug effects on pain and mobility in another patient could increase pain reduction and functional capacity. To test this, we compared the effects of observing positive treatment outcomes in a sham patient (the social learning group [SoLG]) vs hearing the same sham patient report neutral effects (the control group). In the SoLG, the sham patient told peers about pain reduction due to amitriptyline and demonstrated his improved mobility by bending forwards and sideways while he told the control group only that he was taking amitriptyline. The primary outcome was a reduction in clinical low back pain self-ratings. The secondary outcome was perceptions of pain-related disability. The exploratory outcome was mood and coping statements. Data collection occurred before and after the intervention and 2 weeks later. After the intervention, pain decreased in both groups (F [1, 41] = 7.16, P < 0.05, d = 0.83), with no difference between groups. However, the SoLG showed a significantly larger decrease in perceived disability (F [1, 41] = 5, P < 0.05, d = 0.63). The direct observation of patient with chronic low back pain of positive treatment outcomes in the sham patient seems to have enhanced the treatment effects while indirect verbal reports of reduced pain did not.

Indexed as

Chronic PainLow Back PainAmitriptylineHumansMalePain MeasurementPlacebo EffectTreatment OutcomeAmitriptyline

Identifiers

PMID35262315
PMCPMC9199107
OpenAlexW3205577943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.