ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Ethical challenges of placebo use in herbal medicine trials: multiple stakeholder perspectives from qualitative interviews.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ethical use of placebos in herbal medicine (HM) clinical trials remains contested, particularly in contexts where traditional medical systems shape patients’ beliefs and expectations. Complexities in placebo preparation, insufficient transparency, and inconsistent consent practices pose challenges not only to scientific validity but also to ethical standards. This study aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on placebo use in HM trials, with a specific focus on ethical concerns related to trust, informed consent, and trial integrity.
methodsIn-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders, including clinical investigators, research coordinators, trial managers, pharmaceutical staff, and patient representatives. We applied an inductive, framework-based thematic analysis to identify key perceptions, challenges, and needs regarding placebo use.
resultsParticipants demonstrated diverse understandings and attitudes toward placebos. Medical professionals, who often had higher levels of formal medical training, tended to describe placebos from a scientific perspective, whereas patients more commonly expressed skepticism rooted in concerns about trust and transparency. Pharmacists reported substantial challenges in developing indistinguishable HM placebos, raising questions about the ethical implications of adding small amounts of active ingredients. Participants also highlighted inconsistent practices in placebo composition and similarity evaluation, which raised concerns about blinding integrity and transparency, as well as insufficient communication that affected participant trust and overall trial integrity.
conclusionsDifferences in professional and educational background appeared to shape how stakeholders perceived HM placebos, influencing informed consent and ethical conduct in trials. Enhancing understanding and transparency in placebo composition and similarity evaluation is essential to uphold ethical and scientific integrity of HM trials and to guide the development of clear guidelines for HM placebo design and communication. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.