Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Can Nocebo Effects Be Reduced via Open- and Closed-Label Counterconditioning?
Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05284383 (Reducing Nocebo Effects on Pressure Pain), which is not on this 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.
Reducing Nocebo Effects on Pressure Pain: open-and Closed-label Counterconditioning and Extinction Compared
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe overwhelming evidence of nocebo effects adversely affecting the experience of physical symptoms, such as pain, puts emphasis on the study of possible strategies to reduce nocebo effects. Counterconditioning, during which a previously conditioned effect is reversed, has been shown to be a possible promising strategy in a previous study in an open-label design, in which people were informed about the use of inert treatments and the counterconditioning procedure. However, it is unclear whether open-label counterconditioning is as effective as closed-label procedures in comparison to extinction.
methodsIn a randomised controlled trial, we investigated in 66 healthy female participants whether conditioned nocebo effects on pressure pain can be reduced via open-label counterconditioning, closed-label counterconditioning, or extinction.
resultsA significant reduction of nocebo effects was found after open-label counterconditioning (d = 1.13), closed-label counterconditioning (d = 0.69), and extinction (d = 0.66). Open-label counterconditioning was more effective than extinction (d = 0.85), reversed the nocebo effect, and also resulted in a placebo effect. Closed-label counterconditioning was more effective than extinction (d = 0.45) in the sensitivity analyses of nocebo responders only. Finally, larger placebo expectancies predicted a higher response to the open- and closed-label counterconditioning procedures, but not extinction.
conclusionsThese results show that particularly open-label counterconditioning is an effective method to modulate nocebo effects on pressure pain. This provides promise in designing non-deceptive learning-based treatments to reduce nocebo effects in diverse patient groups, including chronic pain disorders. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Few studies have investigated the efficacy open-label counterconditioning to reduce nocebo effects or have compared it to deceptive reduction strategies. The current study demonstrates that open-label counterconditioning is as effective as more deceptive nocebo-reducing strategies and may thus be a promising new method for reducing nocebo effects in a non-deceptive and ethical manner. Results can be helpful while designing learning-based treatments to reduce nocebo effects in patients with, for example, chronic pain disorders.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05284383.
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.