Trial reportScientific reports2025
Investigating whether socially acquired nocebo effects can spread to other treatments.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The "Are You OK?" Paradox: A Scoping Review of Nocebo and Negative Suggestion in Healthcare Communication.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
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
Observation of another's treatment side effects can elicit side effects in the observer, even when the treatment is a placebo. This study investigated whether these socially acquired side effects can generalise to similar treatments. Healthy volunteers (N = 120) participated in a study ostensibly comparing the effect of two cognitive enhancers (placebos). Participants were randomised to one of four experimental groups. The three treatment groups comprised: social modelling of side effects associated with the same treatment; social modelling of side effects associated with the different treatment; and a verbal suggestion only group (i.e., no social modelling). The fourth group was a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome was severity of side effects reported. Groups that received placebos reported increased symptom severity, i.e., showed a nocebo effect. Surprisingly, primary outcome analysis revealed no significant enhancement of the nocebo effect due to social modelling. However, there was an additive effect of social modelling on general side effects (planned secondary outcome) and specifically for headaches and dizziness (exploratory analysis), both of which generalised across treatments. Therefore, preliminary findings suggest that socially induced nocebo side effects may not always occur, but when they do, they can generalise beyond identical treatments. This warrants replication and raises significant concern given the widespread sharing of treatment-related information, potentially contributing to the societal burden of nocebo effects.
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.