Cited by 96Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPain Management and Placebo EffectEthics in Clinical Research

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines)

Open access
Beard, David J, Campbell, Marion K, Blazeby, Jane M, Carr, Andrew J, Weijer, Charles, Cuthbertson, Brian H, Buchbinder, Rachelle, Pinkney, Thomas +22 more·2020·The Lancet

Abstract

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

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/s0140-6736(19)33137-x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beard, D. J., Campbell, M. K., Blazeby, J. M., Carr, A. J., Weijer, C., Cuthbertson, B. H., Buchbinder, R., Pinkney, T., Bishop, F. L., Pugh, J., Cousins, S., Harris, I. A., Lohmander, L. S., Blencowe, N., Gillies, K., Probst, P., Brennan, C., Cook, A., Farrar-Hockley, D., Savulescu, J., Huxtable, R., Rangan, A., Tracey, I., Brocklehurst, P., Ferreira, M. L., Nicholl, J., Reeves, B. C., Hamdy, F., Rowley, S. C., & Cook, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Medical Research Council (GB)
Corresponding author
Beard, David J
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
395
Issue
10226
Pages
828-838
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W3009043580
Cited by
96
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (BRC-1215-20011)
  • Cancer Research UK (25352)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (1215-20011, NF-SI-0611-10216, NIHR200268, BRC-1215-20011)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Bristol (BRC‐1215‐20011)
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K025643/1, MC_PC_17155)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
placebo comparison, surgical trials, randomized controlled trials, trial ethics, risk mitigation, placebo effect, risk of bias, trial design, surgical treatment
MeSH terms
Humans, Placebos, Research Design, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic

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