↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Effects of placebos without deception compared with no treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 113)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Effects of placebos without deception compared with no treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1111/jebm.12251
Pubmed ID
Authors

James E.G. Charlesworth, Grace Petkovic, John M. Kelley, Monika Hunter, Igho Onakpoya, Nia Roberts, Franklin G. Miller, Jeremy Howick, Charlesworth, James E.G., Petkovic, Grace, Kelley, John M., Hunter, Monika, Onakpoya, Igho, Roberts, Nia, Miller, Franklin G., Howick, Jeremy

Abstract

To investigate the clinical efficacy of open-label placebos compared with no treatment in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and clinical trials registers and screened reference lists. The search was run on April 27(th) 2015. We included all randomised controlled trials of any medical condition with open-label placebo and no-treatment groups. Authors independently assessed records and extracted data. We excluded non-randomised trials and non-clinical studies. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. We screened 348 publications, assessed 24 articles for eligibility and identified 5 trials (260 participants) that met inclusion criteria. The clinical conditions were: irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), depression, allergic rhinitis, back pain and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The risk of bias was moderate. We found a positive effect for non-deceptive placebos (standardized mean difference 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 1%). Open-label placebos appear to have positive clinical effects compared to no treatment. Caution is warranted when interpreting these results due the limited number of trials identified, lack of assessor blinding, and the fact that positive messages were included alongside open label placebos. Larger definitive trials are now warranted to explore the potential patient benefit of open-label placebos, to investigate the relative contributions of positive suggestions, and ethical implications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 58 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Unspecified 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 23 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Psychology 15 24%
Unspecified 12 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 9 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 145. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#61,880
of 8,946,424 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
#1
of 113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,209
of 257,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,946,424 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them