ArticleeLife2025
Nocebo effects are stronger and more persistent than placebo effects in healthy individuals.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sexual dysfunction associated with 5α-reductase inhibitors in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Negative expectations and measurable movement mechanics: a scoping review of the nocebo effect on motor performance.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- The "Are You OK?" Paradox: A Scoping Review of Nocebo and Negative Suggestion in Healthcare Communication.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Patient Expectations in Individualised Anaesthesia and Analgesia: A Narrative Review and Future Directions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Nocebo effects are stronger and more persistent than placebo effects in healthy individuals.eLife · 2025Article
- [Words like medicine-Therapeutic communication in anesthesia].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Placebo and nocebo effects illustrate the profound influence of cognitive-affective processes on symptom perception and treatment outcomes, with the potential to significantly alter responses to medical interventions. Despite their clinical relevance, the question of how placebo and nocebo effects differ in strength and duration remains largely unexplored. Using a within-subject design in 104 healthy individuals, we investigated and directly compared the magnitude and persistence of placebo and nocebo effects on experimental pain. Effects were assessed immediately after their induction through verbal instructions and conditioning and at a 1-week follow-up. The study was preregistered in the German Clinical Trials Register (registration number: DRKS00029228). Significant placebo and nocebo effects were detected on days 1 and 8, but nocebo effects were stronger on both test days. Sustained effects after 1 week were primarily predicted by individuals' experienced effects on day 1. Our findings underscore the enduring nature of placebo and nocebo effects in pain, with nocebo responses demonstrating consistently greater strength, which is consistent with an evolutionarily advantageous 'better-safe-than-sorry' strategy. These insights emphasise the significant impact of nocebo effects and stress the need to prioritise efforts to mitigate them 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.