PubMed · 6405969
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P A McCue. 1983-05-28. Panic disorder.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6379.1750-b
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The use of increasingly aggressive methods of cancer treatment during the last 20 years has brought clinical attention to the need for more effective management of pain, nausea, and other aversive side effects of state-of-the-art cancer therapy. One of the most promising approaches to effective management is nonpharmacologic intervention based on behavioral research and theory. The purpose of this review is to examine the effectiveness of behavioral intervention methods in the control of aversive side effects of cancer treatments. Fifty-four published studies using a variety of research designs were identified for review. Results indicated the following: 1) Behavioral intervention can effectively control anticipatory nausea and vomiting in adult and pediatric cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy; however, the evidence for the efficacy of behavioral intervention to control post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting is less clear. 2) Behavioral intervention integrating several behavioral methods can ameliorate anxiety and distress associated with invasive medical treatments. 3) Although a variety of behavioral methods have been shown to reduce acute treatment-related pain, there is increasing evidence that these methods are not equally effective. Hypnotic-like methods, involving relaxation, suggestion, and distracting imagery, hold the greatest promise for pain management. Unfortunately, research is scant on the use of behavioral intervention to control prolonged pain associated with invasive medical procedures. It is clear that the application of behavioral theory and methods has an important place in the care of patients undergoing invasive cancer treatments.
BACKGROUND: Placebo treatments have been reported to help patients with many diseases, but the quality of the evidence supporting this finding has not been rigorously evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials in which patients were randomly assigned to either placebo or no treatment. A placebo could be pharmacologic (e.g., a tablet), physical (e.g., a manipulation), or psychological (e.g., a conversation). RESULTS: We identified 130 trials that met our inclusion criteria. After the exclusion of 16 trials without relevant data on outcomes, there were 32 with binary outcomes (involving 3795 patients, with a median of 51 patients per trial) and 82 with continuous outcomes (involving 4730 patients, with a median of 27 patients per trial). As compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes (pooled relative risk of an unwanted outcome with placebo, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.02), regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect (pooled standardized mean difference in the value for an unwanted outcome between the placebo and untreated groups, -0.28; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.38 to -0.19), but the effect decreased with increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of small trials. The pooled standardized mean difference was significant for the trials with subjective outcomes (-0.36; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.25) but not for those with objective outcomes. In 27 trials involving the treatment of pain, placebo had a beneficial effect (-0.27; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.40 to -0.15). This corresponded to a reduction in the intensity of pain of 6.5 mm on a 100-mm visual-analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.