ReviewPain2026
Methodological considerations for designing and conducting open-label placebo trials.
Review in Pain, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractIn pain and other research fields, placebos have traditionally been associated with deception, although harnessing placebo effects does not necessarily require deception. Open-label placebos (OLPs) represent a novel approach in which inert treatments are administered openly and transparently, allowing patients to knowingly receive an inert treatment while still experiencing therapeutic benefits (eg, pain relief). As OLP research grows, concerns have been raised regarding methodological rigor and the unique challenges posed by unblinded designs in both experimental and clinical contexts. Given the inherent transparency regarding treatment group allocation in OLP trials, particular attention is needed when defining appropriate control groups, implementing feasible blinding strategies, and providing a treatment rationale to adequately explain OLPs. Addressing these challenges is crucial to advancing both the scientific understanding of the psychoneurobiological mechanisms underlying OLP effects and their clinical relevance in pain. In this review, we outline key methodological considerations for designing and conducting OLP studies in pain research and beyond, providing guidance on control group selection, blinding strategies, and reporting standards. In addition, we integrate insights from the patient advisory board of the transregional Collaborative Research Center (CRC/TRR) 289 "Treatment Expectation" to incorporate patient perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of OLPs. Aligning study designs with patient needs and expectations may foster a more meaningful, patient-centered approach to OLP research. By combining methodological guidance and emphasizing patient-centered insights, this review aims to enhance the quality, relevance, and clinical translation of OLP research in pain.
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.