Trial reportCirculation. Population health and outcomes2026
Estimating the Placebo Effect on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Sham-controlled Device Trials: Insights from REDUCE LAP-HF II.
Trial report in Circulation. Population health and outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used as endpoints in clinical trials. However, the magnitude of observed changes in control arms attributable to placebo effects, as compared with other benefits of trial participation, has not been described.This study seeks to estimate the magnitude of the placebo effect by calculating changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS) scores, which quantify the impact of heart failure on patients' symptoms, function, and quality of life, after participants were unblinded to treatment. Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF II randomized participants to atrial shunt or sham procedure, with unblinding after 2 years. The KCCQ was collected at baseline, 2, and 3 years after randomization. KCCQ-OS change from baseline to 2 years (placebo effect plus other benefits from trial participation) and the change from 2 to 3 years (placebo effect loss after unblinding) were calculated in sham-treated patients using mean±SD, as were changes from 2 to 3 years in shunt-treated patients (placebo effect benefit). Results: The analytic cohort included 421 participants (median age 72 years, 65.6% female). Among sham-treated participants (N=182), the mean±SD KCCQ-OS 2-year improvement from baseline was +9.3±22.4 points, with a decrement after unblinding of -1.7±18.2 points from 2 to 3 years. Among shunt-treated patients (N=239), mean±SD KCCQ-OS 2-year improvement was +12.7±22.8 points, with an improvement after unblinding of +1.9±18.2 points. In a hypothetical unblinded trial where placebo effect benefit would be expected in the active intervention arm, and none in the untreated arm, the combined effects would be 3.6 points. Conclusions: In a sham-controlled device trial that collected PRO data during blinded allocation to treatment or sham and after unblinding, the estimated mean placebo effect benefit and loss on the KCCQ-OS were small (≤2 points). Finding a modest placebo effect on PROs may increase confidence in their use as clinical trial outcomes.
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.