The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain
Abstract
In a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with migraine, tension-type headache, chronic low back pain, and osteoarthritis of the knee we investigated the influence of expectations on clinical outcome. The 864 patients included in the analysis received either 12 sessions of acupuncture or minimal (i.e. sham) acupuncture (superficial needling of non-acupuncture points) over an 8 week period. Patients were asked at baseline whether they considered acupuncture to be an effective therapy in general and what they personally expected from the treatment. After three acupuncture sessions patients were asked how confident they were that they would benefit from the treatment strategy they were receiving. Patients were classified as responders if the respective main outcome measure improved by at least fifty percent. Both univariate and multivariate analyses adjusted for potential confounders (such as condition, intervention group, age, sex, duration of complaints, etc.) consistently showed a significant influence of attitudes and expectations on outcome. After completion of treatment, the odds ratio for response between patients considering acupuncture an effective or highly effective therapy and patients who were more sceptical was 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.20-2.32). For personal expectations and confidence after the third session, odds ratios were 2.03 (1.26-3.26) and 2.35 (1.68-3.30), respectively. Results from the 6-month follow-up were similar. In conclusion, in our trials a significant association was shown between better improvement and higher outcome expectations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Placebo and Opioid Analgesia-- Imaging a Shared Neuronal Network
Petrovic, P., Kalso, E., Petersson, K. M., & Ingvar, M. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1067176 · Cited by 1,488
A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality
Simpson, S. H., Eurich, D. T., Majumdar, S. R., Padwal, R. S., Tsuyuki, R. T., Varney, J., & Johnson, J. A. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38875.675486.55 · Cited by 1,353 · cited 1×
“It has been shown repeatedly that patients with good adherence tend to have better outcomes than patients with poor adherence even if they receive placebo (Simpson et al., 2006).”
BackgroundTHE MECHANISM OF PLACEBO ANALGESIA
Levine, J., Gordon, N., & Fields, H. (1978) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92762-9 · Cited by 1,094
Kalauokalani, D., Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Koepsell, T. D., & Deyo, R. A. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005 · Cited by 407
Behinderungseinschätzung bei chronischen Schmerzpatienten
Dillmann, U., Nilges, P., Saile, H., & Gerbershagen, H. U. (1994) · Der Schmerz · doi:10.1007/bf02530415 · Cited by 302
Entwicklung und empirische �berpr�fung des Deutschen Schmerzfragebogens der DGSS
Nagel, B., Gerbershagen, H. U., Lindena, G., & Pfingsten, M. (2002) · Der Schmerz · doi:10.1007/s00482-002-0162-1 · Cited by 254
How the doctor's words affect the patient's brain
Benedetti, F. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702238051 · Cited by 173
Cited by
A Comprehensive Review of the Placebo Effect: Recent Advances and Current Thought
Price, D. D., Finniss, D. G., & Benedetti, F. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941 · Cited by 1,146
Krebs, E. E., Gravely, A., Nugent, S., Jensen, A. C., DeRonne, B., Goldsmith, E. S., Kroenke, K., Bair, M. J., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0899 · Cited by 983
Chou, R., Deyo, R., Friedly, J., Skelly, A., Hashimoto, R., Weimer, M., Fu, R., Dana, T., Kraegel, P., Griffin, J., et al. (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-2459 · Cited by 855
The placebo response in medicine: minimize, maximize or personalize?
Enck, P., Bingel, U., Schedlowski, M., & Rief, W. (2013) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3923 · Cited by 671
(2020) · doi:10.1056/nejmra1907805 · Cited by 634
Metadata
- Authors
- Linde, K., Witt, C. M., Streng, A., Weidenhammer, W., Wagenpfeil, S., Brinkhaus, B., Willich, S. N., & Melchart, D.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 264-271
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2093872011
- Cited by
- 551
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 109.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.006
- The paper
- Linde, K., Witt, C. M., Streng, A., Weidenhammer, W., Wagenpfeil, S., Brinkhaus, B., Willich, S. N., & Melchart, D. (2007). The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.