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
Nocebo effects, patient–clinician communication, and therapeutic outcomes
Colloca, L., & Finniss, D. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.115 · Cited by 326
The self-regulating brain and neurofeedback: experimental science and clinical promise
Thibault, R. T., Lifshitz, M., & Raz, A. (2016) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.10.024 · Cited by 272
A functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the neural mechanisms of hyperalgesic nocebo effect
Kong, J., Gollub, R. L., Polich, G., Kirsch, I., LaViolette, P., Vangel, M., Rosen, B., & Kaptchuk, T. J. (2008) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2944-08.2008 · Cited by 263
“, 2002), adverse events in clinical trials and medical care (Myers et al., 1987; Roscoe et al., 2000; Reuter et al., 2003; Kaptchuk et al., 2006), and public health “mass psychogenic illness” outbreaks (Jones et al.”
Self-citationRelieving patients' pain with expectation interventions: a meta-analysis
Peerdeman, K. J., van Laarhoven, A. I. M., Keij, S. M., Vase, L., Rovers, M. M., Peters, M. L., & Evers, A. W. M. (2016) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000540 · Cited by 239
Patient and practitioner influences on the placebo effect in irritable bowel syndrome.
Kelley, J. M., Lembo, A. J., Ablon, J. S., Villanueva, J. J., Conboy, L. A., Levy, R., Marci, C. D., Kerr, C. E., Kirsch, I., Jacobson, E. E., et al. (2009) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0b013e3181acee12 · Cited by 208
Self-citationBrunoni, A. R., Lopes, M., Kaptchuk, T. J., & Fregni, F. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004824 · Cited by 173
Self-citationA systematic review of factors that contribute to nocebo effects
Webster, R. K., Weinman, J., & Rubin, G. J. (2016) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000416 · Cited by 172
Partial reinforcement, extinction, and placebo analgesia
Au Yeung, S. T., Colagiuri, B., Lovibond, P. F., & Colloca, L. (2014) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.02.022 · Cited by 92
Geruschat, D. R., Richards, T. P., Arditi, A., Cruz, L., Dagnelie, G., Dorn, J. D., Duncan, J. L., Ho, A. C., Olmos de koo, L. C., Sahel, J., et al. (2016) · Clinical and Experimental Optometry · doi:10.1111/cxo.12359 · Cited by 77
Deng, G., Chan, Y., Sjoberg, D., Vickers, A., Yeung, K. S., Kris, M., Straus, D., & Cassileth, B. (2013) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-013-1720-z · Cited by 69
The paradox of sham therapy and placebo effect in osteopathy: A systematic review
Cerritelli, F., Verzella, M., Cicchitti, L., D’Alessandro, G., & Vanacore, N. (2016) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000004728 · Cited by 65
Kong, K. H., Ng, H. L., Li, W., Ng, D. W., Tan, S. I., Tay, K. Y., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. S. (2018) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.897 · Cited by 48
Enhancing Placebo Effects: Insights From Social Psychology
Sliwinski, J., & Elkins, G. R. (2013) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.2012.740434 · Cited by 27
“, 2002), sham acupuncture (Kaptchuk et al., 2006), and sham medications, such as inert pills for depression (Kirsch et al.”
BackgroundEfecto placebo y contexto terapéutico: un reto en investigación clínica
Morral, A., Urrutia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2017) · Medicina Clínica · doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2017.03.034 · Cited by 19
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
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.
