ArticleEFORT open reviews2023
The 'placebo effect' in the conservative treatment of plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- [Chronic plantar fasciitis: Effectiveness of stretching, ultrasound, and phonophoresis. A randomized clinical trial].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Trial
- Is radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT), sham-rESWT or a standardised exercise programme in combination with advice plus customised foot orthoses more effective than advice plus customised foot orthoses alone in the treatment of plantar fasciopathy? A double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial.British journal of sports medicine · 2024Trial
- Comparative Effectiveness of Conservative Therapies for Plantar Fasciitis: A Retrospective Observational Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The effect of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy on pain in patients with various tendinopathies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The study of the placebo effect is key to elucidate the 'real effect' of conservative interventions for plantar fasciitis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantify the impact of placebo in the different conservative treatments of plantar fasciitis. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed on double-blind placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) according to PRISMA guidelines on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The meta-analysis primary outcome was the 0-10 pain variation after placebo treatments analyzed at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, while the overall quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE guidelines. Results: The placebo effect for conservative treatments was studied in 42 double-blind RCTs on 1724 patients. The meta-analysis of VAS pain showed a statistically significant improvement after placebo administration of 2.13/10 points (P < 0.001), being highest at 12 months with 2.79/10 points (P < 0.001). The improvement of the placebo groups was higher in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy studies compared to the injection studies (2.59 vs 1.78; P = 0.05). Eight studies had a low risk of bias, 23 studies had 'some concerns,' and 4 studies had a high risk of bias. The GRADE evaluation showed an overall high quality of evidence. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that the placebo effect represents an important component of all conservative approaches to treat plantar fasciitis. This effect is statistically and clinically significant, increases over time, and depends on the type of conservative treatment applied to address plantar fasciitis.
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.