SynthesisScientific reports2025
A systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in open label placebo in published research.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Informing the patient of the placebo option: an ethical necessity likely to reduce inappropriate psychotropic prescriptions?Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Review
- The mind-bending power of placebo.Nature medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Open-label placebos (OLPs), which are transparently administered inert treatments, have gained increasing attention in the research community. They have the potential to harness placebo effects without deceiving the patient. The purpose of this study was to examine and synthesize prior research discussing ethical issues in OLPs. A systematic qualitative literature review was conducted (last search on January 2023) across multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo) using keywords related to OLPs. Publications were screened and assessed for eligibility. Seventeen articles explicitly addressing OLP ethics were included. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed following established qualitative content analysis procedures. 37 distinct ethical issues were identified, grouped into five overarching themes: (1) Sociocultural and Contextual Factors, (2) Implementation and Logistics, (3) Informed Consent, (4) Patient Health Behavior and Dynamics, and (5) Therapeutic Relationship. Frequently mentioned concerns focused on uncertainty of OLP efficacy, the need for further research, and complexities of dose-extending OLPs. The effective integration of OLPs into healthcare necessitates thoughtful consideration and responsible communication. This analysis shows that demonstrating the efficacy of OLPs becomes pivotal for their widespread adoption, underscoring the necessity for additional research to validate their effectiveness. This review was pre-registered on January 26th, 2023, in the Open Science Framework Registry under the identifier: DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R6NKG .
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.