The Power of a Good Word: Enhancing the Efficacy of Analgesics in Clinical Settings.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Therapeutic mechanisms of acupuncture therapy for acute pain in the emergency department.Integrative medicine research · 2026
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

6 authors.

Roi TreisterThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Vered CohenThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Limor IssaThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Karine Beiruti WieglerRecovery Department, Ziv Medical Center, Safed, Israel.

Alexander IzaksonRecovery Department, Ziv Medical Center, Safed, Israel.

Mariana AgostinhoThe Cheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, mariana.ribolhos6@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCommunication between medical staff and patients about treatment efficacy elicits expectations of benefit and improves treatment outcomes. While demonstrated in multiple studies via different research methodologies, uniform communication protocols have not been adopted in clinical practice. Here, we summarize the results of two sister studies aimed at bridging this gap.

methodsWomen undergoing C-section (study 1, randomized controlled trial) and patients undergoing general or otolaryngologic surgeries (study 2, control group design) were recruited and assigned to the "regular communication" (RC) or "enhanced communication" (EC) arms. The EC arm received positive information about treatment, while the RC arm received no such information. In both studies, the primary outcome was change in pain intensity; in study 2, an additional outcome was morphine consumption.

resultsEighty women successfully completed study 1, and 102 patients successfully completed study 2. In both studies, significant time*group interactions were observed (p < 0.001). The analgesic effect was virtually twice as large in the EC arm compared to the RC arm. In study 2, in the last two timepoints of assessment, participants in the EC arm also consumed fewer doses of opioids than participants in the RC arm (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in vital signs.

conclusionsWe provide ecological evidence that positive information about treatment significantly decreases pain and opioid consumption during routine clinical care. This study and others could encourage healthcare providers to harness the powerful effects of patients' expectations of benefit to improve analgesics outcomes and, potentially, the outcomes of other symptoms.