Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 551

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

Linde, Klaus, Witt, Claudia M., Streng, Andrea, Weidenhammer, Wolfgang, Wagenpfeil, Stefan, Brinkhaus, Benno, Willich, Stefan N., Melchart, Dieter·2007·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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.006

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 551

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.