SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2024
Learning by observing: a systematic exploration of modulatory factors and the impact of observationally induced placebo and nocebo effects on treatment outcomes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Negative expectations and measurable movement mechanics: a scoping review of the nocebo effect on motor performance.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Leveraging expectation effects to improve outcomes in the context of digital mental health interventions.Internet interventions · 2026Review
- Expectation generation and its effect on subsequent pain and visual perception.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Observational learning (OL) refers to learning through observing other people's behavior. OL has been suggested as an effective and simple tool to evoke treatment expectations and corresponding placebo and nocebo effects. However, the exact mechanisms by which OL shapes treatment outcomes, its moderating factors and possible areas of application remain unclear. We thus reviewed the existing literature with two different literature searches to answer the following questions: Which influencing factors contribute to OL-induced placebo and nocebo effects (in healthy volunteers and patients) and how large are these effects (search 1)? In which medical fields has OL been used so far to modulate treatment expectancy and treatment outcomes in patients, their caregivers, and at-risk groups (search 2)? We also aimed to explore whether and how the assessment of treatment expectations has been incorporated. Methods: We conducted two independent and comprehensive systematic literature searches, both carried out on September 20, 2022. Results: We identified 21 studies that investigated OL-mediated placebo and nocebo effects for pain and itch, the (placebo) efficacy of sham treatment on anxiety, and the (nocebo) induction of medication side effects (search 1). Studies showed that OL can efficiently induce placebo and nocebo effects across different presentation modes, with medium effect sizes on average: placebo effects, Discussion: OL effects on treatment outcomes can be both positive and negative. Future research should investigate which individuals would benefit most from OL and how OL can be implemented most effectively to induce placebo and avoid nocebo effects in clinical settings. Systematic review registration: This work was preregistered at the Center for Open Science as open-ended registration (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FVHKE). The protocol can be found here: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-fvhke-v1.
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.