Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42821491›Full record

ArticlePsychotherapy and psychosomatics2026

Treatment Expectations across Open-Label Placebo and Pharmacological Contexts: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Chronic Low Back Pain.

Elisabeth Winkler, Julia Stuhlreyer, Antonia Borcherding, Johannes Wessels, Regine Klinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elisabeth Winkler
Julia Stuhlreyer
Antonia Borcherding
Johannes Wessels
Regine Klinger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChronic low back pain (CLBP) markedly reduces quality of life and remains difficult to treat. Increasing opioid prescriptions highlight the need for effective innovative approaches. This randomized controlled trial aims to investigate whether social observational learning augments analgesic or open-label placebo treatment through treatment expectation modulation in CLBP patients.

methodsIn total, 130 patients with CLBP were randomized into a 2 × 2 fully balanced placebo design plus a natural history (NH) control group. Patients received a 3-week treatment with novamine sulfone (analgesic) or open-label placebo (OLP), with follow-up at 3 months. Expectations were manipulated before treatment, using a positive social observational learning (SoL) video or a neutral control video (neutral). Pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS 0-10) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included treatment expectations and functional capacity.

resultsPain intensity decreased significantly over time in all treatment groups (p < 0.001), with the smallest reduction in NH. Pain reduction in OLP + SoL and in analgesic + neutral was significantly greater than NH (p < 0.05). Expectation manipulation produced significant group differences in expected pain relief (p < 0.05). Higher expected pain relief predicted greater pain reduction after 3 weeks and 3 months (both p < 0.001). Functional capacity improved over time (p < 0.001) without consistent group differences.

conclusionOpen-label placebos combined with social observational learning produced clinically meaningful analgesia that did not significantly differ from active medication. Treatment expectation represents a key mechanism underlying pain relief in CLBP and calls for further investigation.

Indexed as

Chronic low back painOpen-label placeboPlacebo analgesiaRandomized clinical trialSocial observational learningTreatment expectations

Identifiers

PMID42821491
PMCPMC13688524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.