The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a sham device (a validated sham acupuncture needle) has a greater placebo effect than an inert pill in patients with persistent arm pain. DESIGN: A single blind randomised controlled trial created from the two week placebo run-in periods for two nested trials that compared acupuncture and amitriptyline with their respective placebo controls. Comparison of participants who remained on placebo continued beyond the run-in period to the end of the study. SETTING: Academic medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: 270 adults with arm pain due to repetitive use that had lasted at least three months despite treatment and who scored > or =3 on a 10 point pain scale. INTERVENTIONS: Acupuncture with sham device twice a week for six weeks or placebo pill once a day for eight weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Arm pain measured on a 10 point pain scale. Secondary outcomes were symptoms measured by the Levine symptom severity scale, function measured by Pransky's upper extremity function scale, and grip strength. RESULTS: Pain decreased during the two week placebo run-in period in both the sham device and placebo pill groups, but changes were not different between the groups (-0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to 0.25, P = 0.49). Changes in severity scores for arm symptoms and grip strength were similar between groups, but arm function improved more in the placebo pill group (2.0, 0.06 to 3.92, P = 0.04). Longitudinal regression analyses that followed participants throughout the treatment period showed significantly greater downward slopes per week on the 10 point arm pain scale in the sham device group than in the placebo pill group (-0.33 (-0.40 to -0.26) v -0.15 (-0.21 to -0.09), P = 0.0001) and on the symptom severity scale (-0.07 (-0.09 to -0.05) v -0.05 (-0.06 to -0.03), P = 0.02). Differences were not significant, however, on the function scale or for grip strength. Reported adverse effects were different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The sham device had greater effects than the placebo pill on self reported pain and severity of symptoms over the entire course of treatment but not during the two week placebo run in. Placebo effects seem to be malleable and depend on the behaviours embedded in medical rituals.
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
A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia
Vase, L., Riley, J. L., & Price, D. D. (2002) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00205-1 · Cited by 434
Kong, J., Gollub, R. L., Rosman, I. S., Webb, J. M., Vangel, M. G., Kirsch, I., & Kaptchuk, T. J. (2006) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3556-05.2006 · Cited by 395
Self-citation‘Powerful Placebo: The Dark Side of the Randomised Controlled Trial’
Kaptchuk, T. J. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)10111-8 · Cited by 339
Self-citation
Cited by
Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances
Cohen, S. P., Vase, L., & Hooten, W. M. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00393-7 · Cited by 2,614
Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome
Kaptchuk, T. J., Kelley, J. M., Conboy, L. A., Davis, R. B., Kerr, C. E., Jacobson, E. E., Kirsch, I., Schyner, R. N., Nam, B. H., Nguyen, L. T., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39524.439618.25 · Cited by 1,196
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
Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report
Bronfort, G., Haas, M., Evans, R., Leininger, B., & Triano, J. (2010) · Chiropractic & Osteopathy · doi:10.1186/1746-1340-18-3 · Cited by 434
The role of learning in nocebo and placebo effects
Colloca, L., Sigaudo, M., & Benedetti, F. (2008) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.02.006 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaptchuk, T. J., Stason, W. B., Davis, R. B., Legedza, A. R. T., Schnyer, R. N., Kerr, C. E., Stone, D. A., Nam, B. H., Kirsch, I., & Goldman, R. H.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-02-01
- Volume
- 332
- Issue
- 7538
- Pages
- 391-397
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2095870207
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 79.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38726.603310.55
- The paper
- Kaptchuk, T. J., Stason, W. B., Davis, R. B., Legedza, A. R. T., Schnyer, R. N., Kerr, C. E., Stone, D. A., Nam, B. H., Kirsch, I., & Goldman, R. H. (2006). Sham device v inert pill: randomised controlled trial of two placebo treatments. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38726.603310.55
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.