The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids
Abstract
Individual differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, the type of pain and the method of drug administration can account for the response variability to analgesics. By integrating a clinical and an experimental approach, we report here that another important source of variability is represented by individual differences in non-specific (placebo) activation of endogenous opioid systems. In the first part of this study, we analyzed the effectiveness of buprenorphine, tramadol, ketorolac and metamizol in the clinical setting, where the placebo effect was completely eliminated by means of hidden infusions. We found that the hidden injections were significantly less effective and less variable compared with open injections (in full view of the subject), suggesting that part of the response variability was due to non-specific factors (placebo). Since we could not administer the opioid antagonist, naloxone, to these patients, in the second part of this study, we induced experimental ischemic arm pain in healthy volunteers and found that, as occurred in clinical pain, the analgesic response to a hidden injection of the non-opioid ketorolac was less effective and less variable than an open injection. Most importantly, we obtained the same effects by adding naloxone to an open injection of ketorolac, thus blocking the opioid-mediated placebo component of analgesia. These findings indicate that both the psychological (hidden injection) and pharmacological (naloxone) blockade of the placebo response reduce the effectiveness of, and the response variability to, analgesic drugs. Therefore, an important source of response variability to analgesics appears to be due to differences in non-specific activation of endogenous opioid systems.
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
THE 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
Partial antagonism of placebo analgesia by naloxone
Grevert, P., Albert, L. H., & Goldstein, A. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90203-8 · Cited by 228
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
Self-citationBingel, U., Wanigasekera, V., Wiech, K., Ni Mhuircheartaigh, R., Lee, M. C., Ploner, M., & Tracey, I. (2011) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001244 · Cited by 810
Benedetti, F., Pollo, A., Lopiano, L., Lanotte, M., Vighetti, S., & Rainero, I. (2003) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-10-04315.2003 · Cited by 788
Self-citationPlacebo interventions for all clinical conditions
Hróbjartsson, A., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003974.pub3 · Cited by 777
When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect
Benedetti, F., Lanotte, M., Lopiano, L., & Colloca, L. (2007) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.02.020 · Cited by 636
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Amanzio, M., Pollo, A., Maggi, G., & Benedetti, F.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-215
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989360695
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.35
- 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: Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00486-3
- The paper
- Amanzio, M., Pollo, A., Maggi, G., & Benedetti, F. (2001). Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00486-3
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.