PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16858516

[The specific placebo effect].

K Linde
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Placebo effects are considered a relevant component of any therapeutic intervention. At the same time clinical researchers try to control for them as if they were unspecific noise which cannot be differentiated any further. This article shows that the evidence for clinically relevant placebo effects is contradictory. The author believes that these contradictions are mainly due to the misleading terms and concepts of placebo, specific and unspecific effects. A model interpreting all effects of an intervention (excluding spontaneous changes and measurement error) as specific (having a clear-cut mechanism and a size depending on the specific conditions) is proposed. The part of the total effect caused by the postulated mechanism (the specific effect in common terms) is interpreted as attributable while the other parts are considered associated effects. The size of associated effects depends on the characteristics of interventions, patients and providers. This model would better explain the contradictory results reported in placebo research. Further implications for research and health care decision making are discussed.

Explore related subjects

Controlled Clinical Trials as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePlacebo EffectPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Linde. 2006. [The specific placebo effect].. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-006-0002-z

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Planning and analysis of three-arm non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints.

Three-arm trials including an experimental treatment, an active control and a placebo group are frequently preferred for the assessment of non-inferiority. In contrast to two-arm non-inferiority studies, these designs allow a direct proof of efficacy of a new treatment by comparison with placebo. As a further advantage, the test problem for establishing non-inferiority can be formulated in such a way that rejection of the null hypothesis assures that a pre-defined portion of the (unknown) effect the reference shows versus placebo is preserved by the treatment under investigation. We present statistical methods for this study design and the situation of a binary outcome variable. Asymptotic test procedures are given and their actual type I error rates are calculated. Approximate sample size formulae are derived and their accuracy is discussed. Furthermore, the question of optimal allocation of the total sample size is considered. Power properties of the testing strategy including a pre-test for assay sensitivity are presented. The derived methods are illustrated by application to a clinical trial in depression.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Insulin sensitizers in treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Systematic review.

AIM: To summarize the evidence available for the clinical effectiveness of insulin sensitizers in the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) systematically. METHODS: Relevant articles were located using computer-assisted searches of Medline (1966-March 2006), EMBASE (1988-March 2006), CINAHL (1982-March 2003), Educational Resource Information Center (1966-March 2006), Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (1967-March 2006), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (1994-2006), dissertations in ProQuest and FirstSearch databases. Manual searches were made in the abstracts from meetings of the American Gastroenterological Association (1999-2006), and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (2003-2005). Studies were retrieved using the following selection criteria: (1) clinical trials using insulin sensitizers in subjects with NAFLD, (2) adult patients, (3) published as full manuscripts or abstracts, and (4) English, Spanish, German, and French languages only. Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers following standardized procedures. A face-to-face comparison of data was conducted to ensure the completeness and reliability of the abstraction process. RESULTS: Nine studies were included, six using metformin and three using thiazolidinediones. Only two studies were placebo-controlled trials. The median sample size for all studies was 18 subjects. In the placebo-controlled trials, metformin improved insulin resistance markers and liver function tests, but not histological scores. In the single-arm trials, metformin and thiazolidinediones improved insulin resistance markers and liver function tests, and beneficial histological changes were reported. There is limited high-quality information available from which to draw categorical conclusions about the clinical use of insulin sensitizers in NAFLD. CONCLUSION: Current information indicates that the use of insulin sensitizers in NAFLD improves insulin resistance and liver function. Histological changes must be corroborated in randomized controlled trials.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel vasectomy approach to the vas. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. Although no difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches, the sample sizes might have been too small to detect actual differences. Additional well-conducted randomized trials would help answer this question.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗