ArticleeLife2024
The importance of individual beliefs in assessing treatment efficacy.
Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcranial random noise stimulation combined with cognitive training for treating ADHD: a randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial.Translational psychiatry · 2023Trial
- Permissive and instructive causality: integrating biological and environmental factors in mental health.Psychological medicine · 2026Review
- Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation for Pain: Mixed Evidence and the Path to Precision Neuromodulation.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Subjective regulation success mediates the influence of neurofeedback performance on mood in the absence of training effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Model for Response to Internet-Delivered CBT vs Antidepressant Medication.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of rTMS compared to SSRI as early treatment of depression - study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (Early-TMS).European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
- Personalized home based neurostimulation via AI optimization augments sustained attention.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- The influence of informational priming on motor expectancy in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Individualized frequency and montage tACS to engage theta-gamma coupling and enhance working memory in mild cognitive impairment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Cognitive load-dependent effects of HD-tDCS on the executive vigilance decrement: insights from aperiodic EEG activity.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
- Exploring neurofeedback as a therapeutic intervention for subjective cognitive decline.The European journal of neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual's subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in
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.