ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Noble Humbug? Hard and soft laws on clinical placebo use.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in open label placebo in published research.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Informing the patient of the placebo option: an ethical necessity likely to reduce inappropriate psychotropic prescriptions?Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Review
- A novel provocation protocol to identify nocebo effects in clinical practice-a proof-of-concept n-of-1 study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the widespread historical and contemporary use of placebos in medicine, legal regulations addressing their administration remain limited in many countries. This paper examines the legal landscape of clinical placebo use, focusing on key jurisdictions such as France, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Given the ethical and legal complexities surrounding placebo use, a critical assessment of existing regulatory frameworks is essential. This study employs a multidisciplinary approach, analyzing both binding laws ("hard laws") and non-binding principles ("soft laws") related to placebo administration. Data were collected from legal statutes, health institution guidelines, and professional medical codes to map the regulatory environment governing placebos in different legal systems. The results indicate significant variations in how placebos are addressed legally. For instance in Germany and the UK, no specific laws regulate placebo use, but statutes on informed consent implicitly cover their administration. In the United States, the American Medical Association provides ethical guidelines permitting placebo use under strict conditions emphasizing patient welfare and transparency. Across all examined jurisdictions, unauthorized placebo use may lead to legal consequences such as medical fraud allegations or violations of patient rights. These findings highlight the need for explicit regulatory guidelines to ensure that placebo use adheres to ethical and legal standards. The growing acceptance of open-label placebos (OLPs), which demonstrate efficacy without deception, presents a potential avenue for aligning legal frameworks with evolving medical practices. Future regulatory developments should address the ethical and legal challenges associated with placebos, ensuring patient autonomy and informed consent remain central to their use in clinical practice.
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.