ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
A Comprehensive Scientometric Analysis of Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Pain Research: From Placebo Mechanisms to Clinical Trials.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Scientometric Analysis of Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Pain Research: From Placebo Mechanisms to Clinical Trials.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Placebo and nocebo phenomena are central in neuroscience, psychology, and clinical research, yet comprehensive bibliometric analyses remain limited. This study mapped placebo and nocebo research in pain, distinguishing mechanistic studies from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using data from the Web of Science Core Collection up to March 2025, which yielded 1246 mechanistic studies and 35,134 RCTs. Analyses performed with the Bibliometrix R package included descriptive statistics, co-citation and keyword co-occurrence networks, and local citations to assess internal impact. Mechanistic studies grew 3.97% annually, focusing on expectation, conditioning, and pain modulation, with key contributions from Benedetti, Colloca, and Wager, concentrated in the USA, Germany, Italy, and the UK. RCTs grew 3.52% per year, emphasising systematic reviews and methodological standards (Jadad scale, PRISMA), led by Moore and Manchikanti, with the USA, China, and the UK dominating output. Co-citation analyses identified mechanistic clusters around opioidergic and dopaminergic pathways and prefrontal-cingulate circuits, and RCT clusters emphasising methodological rigour and pain outcomes. Keyword analyses highlighted pain, analgesia, and expectation as central themes, with emerging trends reflecting evolving clinical applications and innovative trial designs. This scientometric mapping underscores the dual role of placebo as a neurobiological phenomenon and methodological cornerstone, offering a comprehensive overview of the evolution, structure, and thematic organisation of placebo and nocebo 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.