Placebo(Redirected from Placebo effect)
This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A placebo is a substance or treatment with no active therapeutic effect. Common placebos include inert tablets (like sugar pills), inert injections (like saline), sham surgery, and other procedures.
In drug testing and medical research, a placebo can be made to resemble an active medication or therapy so that it functions as a control; this is to prevent the recipient(s) and/or others from knowing (with their consent) whether a treatment is active or inactive, as expectations about efficacy can influence results. In a clinical trial any change in the placebo arm is known as the placebo response, and the difference between this and the result of no treatment is the placebo effect.
A placebo may be given to a person in a clinical context in order to deceive the recipient into thinking that it is an active treatment. The use of placebos as treatment in clinical medicine is ethically problematic as it introduces deception and dishonesty into the doctor–patient relationship. Placebos have no impact on disease itself; at most they affect peoples' assessment of their own condition.
Historically, an influential 1955 study entitled The Powerful Placebo established the idea that placebo effects were clinically important, and were a result of the brain's role in physical health, but a 1997 review of the study found "no evidence [...] of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited". The placebo effect is certainly a pervasive idea; in fact, it is part of the recorded response to any active medical intervention.
Common placebos include pills ("sugar pills") or saline injections. Fake surgeries have also seen some use. An example is the Finnish Meniscal Legion Study Group’s trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which found a sham meniscal surgery to be equally effective to the actual procedure.
Placebos used in clinical trials have sometimes had unintended consequences. A report in the Annals of Internal Medicine that looked at details from 150 clinical trials found that certain placebos used in the trials affected the results. For example, one study on cholesterol-lowering drugs used olive oil and corn oil in the placebo pills. However, according to the report, this "may lead to an understatement of drug benefit: The monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids of these 'placebos,' and their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, can reduce lipid levels and heart disease." Another example researchers reported in the study was a clinical trial of a new therapy for cancer patients suffering from anorexia. The placebo that was used included lactose. However, since cancer patients typically face a higher risk of lactose intolerance, the placebo pill might actually have caused unintended side-effects that made the experimental drug look better in comparison.
In a 1983 article largely attributing the observed results to statistical regression, Clement J. McDonald and others defined a placebo as "a substance or procedure... that is objectively without specific activity for the condition being treated".
Placebos have no meaningful therapeutic worth. They have no effect on disease, but at most only affect some people's subjective judgement of their symptoms. Sometimes they can make people feel better, and sometimes worse – in which case they are termed a nocebo.
Because the placebo response is simply the patient response that cannot be attributed to an investigational intervention, there are multiple possible components of a measured placebo effect. These components have varying relevance depending on study design and the types of observations. While there is some evidence that placebo interventions can alter levels of endocannabinoids or endogenous opioids, other prominent components include expectancy effects, regression to the mean, and flawed research methodologies.
Objective and subjective effectsEdit
Brain imaging techniques done by Emeran Mayer, Johanna Jarco and Matt Lieberman showed some physiological changes in the brain. Placebos can produce some objective physiological changes, such as changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and chemical activity in the brain, in cases involving pain, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and some symptoms of Parkinson’s. However, in other cases, like asthma, the effect is purely subjective, when the patient reports improvement despite no objective change in the underlying condition. One explanation of the reported improvement is, in the words of Mike Hall, that "patients [are] telling doctors what they want to hear". If this is indeed the case, it casts doubt on a larger body of placebo research, which generally finds placebo effects in self-reported outcomes. 
Factors influencing the power of the placebo effectEdit
A review published in JAMA Psychiatry found that, in trials of antipsychotic medications, the change in response to receiving a placebo had increased significantly between 1960 and 2013. The review's authors identified several factors that could be responsible for this change, including inflation of baseline scores and enrollment of fewer severely ill patients. Another analysis published in Pain in 2015 found that placebo responses had increased considerably in neuropathic pain clinical trials conducted in the United States from 1990 to 2013. The researchers suggested that this may be because such trials have "increased in study size and length" during this time period.
In research trialsEdit
Knowingly giving a person a placebo when there is an effective treatment available is a bioethically complex issue. While placebo-controlled trials might provide information about the effectiveness of a treatment, it denies some patients what could be the best available (if unproven) treatment. Informed consent is usually required for a study to be considered ethical, including the disclosure that some test subjects will receive placebo treatments.
The ethics of placebo-controlled studies have been debated in the revision process of the Declaration of Helsinki. Of particular concern has been the difference between trials comparing inert placebos with experimental treatments, versus comparing the best available treatment with an experimental treatment; and differences between trials in the sponsor's developed countries versus the trial's targeted developing countries.
Some suggest that existing medical treatments should be used instead of placebos, to avoid having some patients not receive medicine during the trial.
In medical practiceEdit
A study of Danish general practitioners found that 48% had prescribed a placebo at least 10 times in the past year. The most frequently prescribed placebos were presented as antibiotics for viral infections, and vitamins for fatigue. Specialists and hospital-based physicians reported much lower rates of placebo use. A 2004 study in the British Medical Journal of physicians in Israel found that 60% used placebos in their medical practice, most commonly to "fend off" requests for unjustified medications or to calm a patient. The accompanying editorial concluded, "We cannot afford to dispense with any treatment that works, even if we are not certain how it does." Other researchers have argued that open provision of placebos for treating ADHD in children can be effective in maintaining ADHD children on lower stimulant doses in the short term.
Critics of the practice responded that it is unethical to prescribe treatments that do not work, and that telling a patient (as opposed to a research test subject) that a placebo is a real medication is deceptive and harms the doctor–patient relationship in the long run. Critics also argued that using placebos can delay the proper diagnosis and treatment of serious medical conditions. While some say that blanket consent, or the general consent to unspecified treatment given by patients beforehand, is ethical, others argue that patients should always obtain specific information about the name of the drug they are receiving, its side effects, and other treatment options. This view is shared by some on the grounds of patient autonomy. There are also concerns that legitimate doctors and pharmacists could open themselves up to charges of fraud or malpractice by using a placebo.
About 25% of physicians in both the Danish and Israeli studies used placebos as a diagnostic tool to determine if a patient's symptoms were real, or if the patient was malingering. Both the critics and defenders of the medical use of placebos agreed that this was unethical. The British Medical Journal editorial said, "That a patient gets pain relief from a placebo does not imply that the pain is not real or organic in origin...the use of the placebo for 'diagnosis' of whether or not pain is real is misguided."
In the Committee's view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice—which the Government claims is very important—as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor–patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.
A survey in the United States of more than 10,000 physicians came to the result that while 24% of physicians would prescribe a treatment that is a placebo simply because the patient wanted treatment, 58% would not, and for the remaining 18%, it would depend on the circumstances.
- Natural course of the diseases including spontaneous improvement, fluctuation of symptoms;
- Regression to the mean;
- Additional treatments
- conditional switching of placebo treatment
- Biases, including scaling bias, answers of politeness, experimental subordination, conditioned answers;
- Experimenter and observer biases including misjudgment or irrelevant response variables;
- Psychological effects including psychosomatic phenomena, expectation effects and classical conditioning.
In 1985, Irving Kirsch hypothesized that placebo effects are produced by the self-fulfilling effects of response expectancies, in which the belief that one will feel different leads a person to actually feel different. According to this theory, the belief that one has received an active treatment can produce the subjective changes thought to be produced by the real treatment. Placebos can act similarly through classical conditioning, wherein a placebo and an actual stimulus are used simultaneously until the placebo is associated with the effect from the actual stimulus. Both conditioning and expectations play a role in placebo effect, and make different kinds of contribution. Conditioning has a longer-lasting effect, and can affect earlier stages of information processing. Those that think that a treatment will work display a stronger placebo effect than those that do not, as evidenced by a study of acupuncture.
Additionally, motivation may contribute to the placebo effect. The active goals of an individual changes their somatic experience by altering the detection and interpretation of expectation-congruent symptoms, and by changing the behavioral strategies a person pursues. Motivation may link to the meaning through which people experience illness and treatment. Such meaning is derived from the culture in which they live and which informs them about the nature of illness and how it responds to treatment.
Placebo effect and the brainEdit
Functional imaging upon placebo analgesia suggests links to the activation, and increased functional correlation between this activation, in the anterior cingulate, prefrontal, orbitofrontal and insular cortices, nucleus accumbens, amygdala, the brainstem periaqueductal gray matter, and the spinal cord.
The higher brain works by regulating subcortical processes. High placebo responses link with enhanced dopamine and mu-opioid activity in the circuitry for reward responses and motivated behavior of the nucleus accumbens, and, on the converse, anti-analgesic nocebos responses were associated with deactivation in this part of the brain of dopamine and opioid release. (It has been known that placebo analgesia depends upon the release in the brain of endogenous opioids since 1978.) Such analgesic placebos activation changes processing lower down in the brain by enhancing the descending inhibition through the periaqueductal gray on spinal nociceptive reflexes, while the expectations of anti-analgesic nocebos acts in the opposite way to block this.
Functional imaging upon placebo analgesia has been summarized as showing that the placebo response is "mediated by "top-down" processes dependent on frontal cortical areas that generate and maintain cognitive expectancies. Dopaminergic reward pathways may underlie these expectancies". "Diseases lacking major 'top-down' or cortically based regulation may be less prone to placebo-related improvement".
Brain and bodyEdit
The brain has control over the body processes affected by placebos.
In conditioning, a neutral stimulus saccharin is paired in a drink with an agent that produces an unconditioned response. For example, that agent might be cyclophosphamide, which causes immunosuppression. After learning this pairing, the taste of saccharin by itself is able to cause immunosuppression, as a new conditioned response via neural top-down control. Such conditioning has been found to affect a diverse variety of not just basic physiological processes in the immune system but ones such as serum iron levels, oxidative DNA damage levels, and insulin secretion. Recent reviews have argued that the placebo effect is due to top-down control by the brain for immunity and pain. Pacheco-López and colleagues have raised the possibility of "neocortical-sympathetic-immune axis providing neuroanatomical substrates that might explain the link between placebo/conditioned and placebo/expectation responses.":441 There has also been research aiming to understand underlying neurobiological mechanisms of action in pain relief, immunosuppression, Parkinson's disease and depression.
Dopaminergic pathways have been implicated in the placebo response in pain and depression.
A phenomenon opposite to the placebo effect has also been observed. When an inactive substance or treatment is administered to a recipient who has an expectation of it having a negative impact, this intervention is known as a nocebo (Latin nocebo = "I shall harm"). A nocebo effect occurs when the recipient of an inert substance reports a negative effect and/or a worsening of symptoms, with the outcome resulting not from the substance itself, but from negative expectations about the treatment.
Another negative consequence is that placebos can cause side-effects associated with real treatment. One example of this is with those that have already taken an opiate, can then show respiratory depression when given it again in the form of a placebo.
Withdrawal symptoms can also occur after placebo treatment. This was found, for example, after the discontinuation of the Women's Health Initiative study of hormone replacement therapy for menopause. Women had been on placebo for an average of 5.7 years. Moderate or severe withdrawal symptoms were reported by 4.8% of those on placebo compared to 21.3% of those on hormone replacement.
Symptoms and conditionsEdit
The placebo effect is believed to reduce pain—a phenomenon known as placebo analgesia—in two different ways. One way is by the placebo initiating the release of endorphins, which are natural pain killers produced by the brain. The other way is the placebo changing the patient's perception of pain. "A person might reinterpret a sharp pain as uncomfortable tingling."
One way in which the magnitude of placebo analgesia can be measured is by conducting "open/hidden" studies, in which some patients receive an analgesic and are informed that they will be receiving it (open), while others are administered the same drug without their knowledge (hidden). Such studies have found that analgesics are considerably more effective when the patient knows they are receiving them.
In 2008, a controversial meta-analysis led by psychologist Irving Kirsch, analyzing data from the FDA, concluded that 82% of the response to antidepressants was accounted for by placebos. However, there are serious doubts about the used methods and the interpretation of the results, especially the use of 0.5 as cut-off point for the effect-size. A complete reanalysis and recalculation based on the same FDA data discovered that the Kirsch study suffered from important flaws in the calculations. The authors concluded that although a large percentage of the placebo response was due to expectancy, this was not true for the active drug. Besides confirming drug effectiveness, they found that the drug effect was not related to depression severity.
Another meta-analysis found that 79% of depressed patients receiving placebo remained well (for 12 weeks after an initial 6–8 weeks of successful therapy) compared to 93% of those receiving antidepressants. In the continuation phase however, patients on placebo relapsed significantly more often than patients on antidepressants. A 2009 meta-analysis reported that in 2005 68% of the effects of antidepressants was due to the placebo effect, which was more than double the placebo response rate in 1980.
Chronic fatigue syndromeEdit
It was previously assumed that placebo response rates in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) are unusually high, "at least 30% to 50%", because of the subjective reporting of symptoms and the fluctuating nature of the condition. According to a meta-analysis and contrary to conventional wisdom, the pooled response rate in the placebo group was 19.6%, even lower than in some other medical conditions. The authors offer possible explanations for this result: CFS is widely understood to be difficult to treat, which could reduce expectations of improvement. In context of evidence showing placebos do not have powerful clinical effects when compared to no treatment, a low rate of spontaneous remission in CFS could contribute to reduced improvement rates in the placebo group. Intervention type also contributed to the heterogeneity of the response. Low patient and provider expectations regarding psychological treatment may explain particularly low placebo responses to psychiatric treatments.
The word 'placebo', Latin for "I will please", dates back to a Latin translation of the Bible by St Jerome. In 1811, Hooper’s Quincy’s Lexicon-Medicum defined placebo as "[any medicine] adapted more to please than to benefit the patient".
Early implementations of placebo controls date back to 16th-century Europe with Catholic efforts to discredit exorcisms. Individuals who claimed to be possessed by demonic forces were given false holy objects. If the person reacted with violent contortions, it was concluded that the possession was purely imagination.
Use of the placebo effect as a medical treatment has been controversial throughout history, and was common until the mid twentieth century. In 1903 Richard Cabot concluded that it should be avoided because it is deceptive. Newman points out the "placebo paradox" – it may be unethical to use a placebo, but also unethical "not to use something that heals". He suggests to solve this dilemma by appropriating the meaning response in medicine, that is make use of the placebo effect, as long as the "one administering... is honest, open, and believes in its potential healing power".
John Haygarth was the first to investigate the efficacy of the placebo effect in the 18th century. He tested a popular medical treatment of his time, called "Perkins tractors", and concluded that the remedy was ineffectual by demonstrating that the results from a dummy remedy were just as useful as from the alleged "active" remedy.
Émile Coué, a French pharmacist, working as an apothecary at Troyes between 1882 and 1910, also advocated the effectiveness of the "Placebo Effect". He became known for reassuring his clients by praising each remedy's efficiency and leaving a small positive notice with each given medication. His book Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion was published in England (1920) and in the United States (1922).
Placebos remained widespread in medicine until the 20th century, and they were sometimes endorsed as necessary deceptions. In 1903, Richard Cabot said that he was brought up to use placebos, but he ultimately concluded by saying that "I have not yet found any case in which a lie does not do more harm than good".
T. C. Graves first defined the "placebo effect" in a published paper in The Lancet in 1920.[original research?] He spoke of "the placebo effects of drugs" being manifested in those cases where "a real psychotherapeutic effect appears to have been produced".
Henry K. Beecher, in a paper in 1955, suggested placebo effects occurred in about 35% of people. However, this paper has been criticized for failing to distinguish the placebo effect from other factors, and for thereby encouraging an inflated notion of the placebo effect, and a 1997 re-analysis failed to support Beecher's conclusions.
In 1955, Henry K. Beecher published the classic work entitled ‘‘The Powerful Placebo.’’ Since that time, 40 years ago, the placebo effect has been considered a scientific fact. Beecher was the first scientist to quantify the placebo effect. [...] This publication is still the most frequently cited placebo reference. Recently Beecher’s article was reanalyzed with surprising results: In contrast to his claim, no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited by him.— Kienle & Kiene, The Powerful Placebo Effect: Fact or Fiction? 
In 1961 Henry K. Beecher concluded that surgeons he categorized as enthusiasts relieved their patients' chest pain and heart problems more than skeptic surgeons. Beginning in the 1960s, the placebo effect became widely recognized and placebo-controlled trials became the norm in the approval of new medications.
Dylan Evans argues that placebos are linked with activation of the acute-phase response so will work only on subjective conditions such as pain, swelling, stomach ulcers, depression, and anxiety that are linked to this.
A 2001 systematic review of clinical trials concluded that there was no evidence of clinically important effects, except perhaps in the treatment of pain and continuous subjective outcomes. The authors later published a Cochrane review with similar conclusions (updated as of 2010[update]). Most studies have attributed the difference from baseline until the end of the trial to a placebo effect, but the reviewers examined studies which had both placebo and untreated groups in order to distinguish the placebo effect from the natural progression of the disease.
Placebo observations differ between individuals. In the 1950s, there was considerable research to find whether there was a specific personality to those that responded to placebos. The findings could not be replicated and it is now thought to have no effect.
The desire for relief from pain, "goal motivation", and how far pain is expected to be relieved increases placebo analgesia. Another factor increasing the effectiveness of placebos is the degree to which a person attends to their symptoms, "somatic focus". Individual variation in response to analgesic placebos has been linked to regional neurochemical differences in the internal affective state of the individuals experiencing pain.
The placebo effect makes it more difficult to evaluate new treatments. Clinical trials control for this effect by including a group of subjects that receives a sham treatment. The subjects in such trials are blinded as to whether they receive the treatment or a placebo. If a person is given a placebo under one name, and they respond, they will respond in the same way on a later occasion to that placebo under that name but not if under another.
Clinical trials are often double-blinded so that the researchers also do not know which test subjects are receiving the active or placebo treatment. The placebo effect in such clinical trials is weaker than in normal therapy since the subjects are not sure whether the treatment they are receiving is active.
Pronunciation and etymologyEdit
- "placebo". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 January 2017.
- Gottlieb, Scott (18 February 2014). "The FDA Wants You for Sham Surgery". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
- Lanotte M, Lopiano L, Torre E, Bergamasco B, Colloca L, Benedetti F (November 2005). "Expectation enhances autonomic responses to stimulation of the human subthalamic limbic region". Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 19 (6): 500–9. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2005.06.004. PMID 16055306.
- "placebo". 9 April 2016. Retrieved 21 January 2017.
- "placebo". Retrieved 21 January 2017.
- Chaplin S (2006). "The placebo response: an important part of treatment". Prescriber: 16–22. doi:10.1002/psb.344. ISSN 1931-2253.
- David H. Newman (2008). Hippocrates' Shadow. Scribner. pp. 134–59. ISBN 1-4165-5153-0.
- "Placebo Effect". American Cancer Society. 10 April 2015.
- Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (May 2001). "Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment". The New England Journal of Medicine. 344 (21): 1594–602. doi:10.1056/NEJM200105243442106. PMID 11372012.
- Kienle GS, Kiene H (December 1997). "The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction?". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 50 (12): 1311–8. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00203-5. PMID 9449934.
- Hróbjartsson A, Norup M (June 2003). "The use of placebo interventions in medical practice--a national questionnaire survey of Danish clinicians". Evaluation & the Health Professions. 26 (2): 153–65. doi:10.1177/0163278703026002002. PMID 12789709.
- Eccles R (2002). "The powerful placebo in cough studies?". Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 15 (3): 303–8. doi:10.1006/pupt.2002.0364. PMID 12099783.
- Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, Itälä A, Joukainen A, Nurmi H, Kalske J, Järvinen TL (December 2013). "Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear". The New England Journal of Medicine. 369 (26): 2515–24. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1305189. PMID 24369076.
- "Placebo Surgery: More Effective Than You Think?". The Huffington Post. 2014-01-07. Retrieved 2016-04-22.
- Golomb BA, Erickson LC, Koperski S, Sack D, Enkin M, Howick J (October 2010). "What's in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials". Annals of Internal Medicine. 153 (8): 532–5. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00010. PMID 20956710.
- McDonald CJ, Mazzuca SA, McCabe GP (1983). "How much of the placebo 'effect' is really statistical regression?". Statistics in Medicine. 2 (4): 417–27. doi:10.1002/sim.4780020401. PMID 6369471.
- Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (January 2010). Hróbjartsson A, ed. "Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 106 (1): CD003974. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3. PMID 20091554.
- Colloca, Luana (Aug 28, 2013). Placebo and Pain: From Bench to Bedside (1st ed.). Academic Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 9780123979315.
- Benedetti F, Mayberg HS, Wager TD, Stohler CS, Zubieta JK (November 2005). "Neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo effect". The Journal of Neuroscience. 25 (45): 10390–402. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3458-05.2005. PMID 16280578.
- Barnett AG, van der Pols JC, Dobson AJ (February 2005). "Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it". International Journal of Epidemiology. 34 (1): 215–20. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh299. PMID 15333621.
- Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (August 2004). "Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment". Journal of Internal Medicine. 256 (2): 91–100. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01355.x. PMID 15257721. Gøtzsche's biographical article has further references related to this work.
- Kirsch I (1997). "Specifying non-specifics: Psychological mechanism of the placebo effect". In Harrington A. The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 166–86. ISBN 978-0-674-66986-4.
- Lieberman MD, Jarcho JM, Berman S, Naliboff BD, Suyenobu BY, Mandelkern M, Mayer EA (May 2004). "The neural correlates of placebo effects: a disruption account". NeuroImage. 22 (1): 447–55. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.01.037. PMID 15110038.
- "The Placebo Phenomenon". 14 December 2012.
- Hall M, Howarth A, Marshall M (December 15, 2016). "Skeptics with a K: Episode #188". The Merseyside Skeptics Society. Retrieved May 3, 2018.
- Rutherford BR, Pott E, Tandler JM, Wall MM, Roose SP, Lieberman JA (December 2014). "Placebo response in antipsychotic clinical trials: a meta-analysis". JAMA Psychiatry. 71 (12): 1409–21. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1319. PMC . PMID 25321611.
- Tuttle AH, Tohyama S, Ramsay T, Kimmelman J, Schweinhardt P, Bennett GJ, Mogil JS (December 2015). "Increasing placebo responses over time in U.S. clinical trials of neuropathic pain". Pain. 156 (12): 2616–26. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000333. PMID 26307858. Lay summary.
- Howick J (September 2009). "Questioning the methodologic superiority of 'placebo' over 'active' controlled trials". The American Journal of Bioethics. 9 (9): 34–48. doi:10.1080/15265160903090041. PMID 19998192.
- Kottow M (December 2010). "The improper use of research placebos". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 16 (6): 1041–4. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01246.x. PMID 20663001.
- Michels (2000). "The Placebo Problem Remains". Arch Gen Psychiatry. 57 (4): 321–322. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.57.4.321.
- Nitzan U, Lichtenberg P (October 2004). "Questionnaire survey on use of placebo". BMJ. 329 (7472): 944–6. doi:10.1136/bmj.38236.646678.55. PMC . PMID 15377572.
- Spiegel D (October 2004). "Placebos in practice". BMJ. 329 (7472): 927–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7472.927. PMC . PMID 15499085.
- Sandler AD, Bodfish JW (January 2008). "Open-label use of placebos in the treatment of ADHD: a pilot study". Child. 34 (1): 104–10. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00797.x. PMID 18171451.
- Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (January 2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 82 (1): 69–75. doi:10.4065/82.1.69. PMID 17285788.
- Asai A, Kadooka Y (May 2013). "Reexamination of the ethics of placebo use in clinical practice". Bioethics. 27 (4): 186–93. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01943.x. PMID 22296589.
- Chua SJ, Pitts M (June 2015). "The ethics of prescription of placebos to patients with major depressive disorder". Chinese Medical Journal. 128 (11): 1555–7. doi:10.4103/0366-6999.157699. PMID 26021517.
- Malani A (2008). "Regulation with Placebo Effects". Chicago Unbound. 58: 455. Retrieved 30 March 2018.
- UK Parliamentary Committee Science; Technology Committee. "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy". Archived from the original on 2012-02-24.
- Doctors Struggle With Tougher-Than-Ever Dilemmas: Other Ethical Issues Author: Leslie Kane. 11/11/2010
- Hróbjartsson A, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller FG (November 2011). "Placebo effect studies are susceptible to response bias and to other types of biases". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 64 (11): 1223–9. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.008. PMC . PMID 21524568.
- Stewart-Williams S, Podd J (March 2004). "The placebo effect: dissolving the expectancy versus conditioning debate". Psychological Bulletin. 130 (2): 324–40. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.324. PMID 14979775.
- Kirsch I (1985). "Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior". American Psychologist. 40 (11): 1189–1202. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.11.1189.
- Voudouris NJ, Peck CL, Coleman G (July 1989). "Conditioned response models of placebo phenomena: further support". Pain. 38 (1): 109–16. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(89)90080-8. PMID 2780058.
- Klinger R, Soost S, Flor H, Worm M (March 2007). "Classical conditioning and expectancy in placebo hypoalgesia: a randomized controlled study in patients with atopic dermatitis and persons with healthy skin". Pain. 128 (1-2): 31–9. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.08.025. PMID 17030095.
- Colloca L, Tinazzi M, Recchia S, Le Pera D, Fiaschi A, Benedetti F, Valeriani M (October 2008). "Learning potentiates neurophysiological and behavioral placebo analgesic responses". Pain. 139 (2): 306–14. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.04.021. PMID 18538928.
- Linde K, Witt CM, Streng A, Weidenhammer W, Wagenpfeil S, Brinkhaus B, Willich SN, Melchart D (April 2007). "The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain". Pain. 128 (3): 264–71. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.006. PMID 17257756.
- Bausell RB, Lao L, Bergman S, Lee WL, Berman BM (March 2005). "Is acupuncture analgesia an expectancy effect? Preliminary evidence based on participants' perceived assignments in two placebo-controlled trials". Evaluation & the Health Professions. 28 (1): 9–26. doi:10.1177/0163278704273081. PMID 15677384.
- Geers AL, Weiland PE, Kosbab K, Landry SJ, Helfer SG (August 2005). "Goal activation, expectations, and the placebo effect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89 (2): 143–59. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168. PMID 16162050.
- Geers AL, Helfer SG, Weiland PE, Kosbab K (April 2006). "Expectations and placebo response: a laboratory investigation into the role of somatic focus". Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 29 (2): 171–8. doi:10.1007/s10865-005-9040-5. PMID 16374671.
- Oken BS (November 2008). "Placebo effects: clinical aspects and neurobiology". Brain. 131 (Pt 11): 2812–23. doi:10.1093/brain/awn116. PMC . PMID 18567924.
- Scott DJ, Stohler CS, Egnatuk CM, Wang H, Koeppe RA, Zubieta JK (February 2008). "Placebo and nocebo effects are defined by opposite opioid and dopaminergic responses". Archives of General Psychiatry. 65 (2): 220–31. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2007.34. PMID 18250260.
- Lidstone SC, Stoessl AJ (2007). "Understanding the placebo effect: contributions from neuroimaging". Molecular Imaging and Biology. 9 (4): 176–85. doi:10.1007/s11307-007-0086-3. PMID 17334853.
- Goffaux P, Redmond WJ, Rainville P, Marchand S (July 2007). "Descending analgesia--when the spine echoes what the brain expects". Pain. 130 (1-2): 137–43. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.11.011. PMID 17215080.
- Matre D, Casey KL, Knardahl S (January 2006). "Placebo-induced changes in spinal cord pain processing". The Journal of Neuroscience. 26 (2): 559–63. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4218-05.2006. PMID 16407554.
- Qiu YH, Wu XY, Xu H, Sackett D (October 2009). "Neuroimaging study of placebo analgesia in humans". Neuroscience Bulletin. 25 (5): 277–82. doi:10.1007/s12264-009-0907-2. PMID 19784082.
- Zubieta JK, Stohler CS (March 2009). "Neurobiological mechanisms of placebo responses". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1156 (1): 198–210. Bibcode:2009NYASA1156..198Z. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04424.x. PMC . PMID 19338509.
- Levine JD, Gordon NC, Fields HL (September 1978). "The mechanism of placebo analgesia". Lancet. 2 (8091): 654–7. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92762-9. PMID 80579.
- Faria V, Fredrikson M, Furmark T (July 2008). "Imaging the placebo response: a neurofunctional review". European Neuropsychopharmacology. 18 (7): 473–85. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2008.03.002. PMID 18495442.
- Diederich NJ, Goetz CG (August 2008). "The placebo treatments in neurosciences: New insights from clinical and neuroimaging studies". Neurology. 71 (9): 677–84. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000324635.49971.3d. PMID 18725593.
- Ader R, Cohen N (1975). "Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression". Psychosomatic Medicine. 37 (4): 333–40. doi:10.1097/00006842-197507000-00007. PMID 1162023.
- Pacheco-López G, Engler H, Niemi MB, Schedlowski M (September 2006). "Expectations and associations that heal: Immunomodulatory placebo effects and its neurobiology". Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 20 (5): 430–46. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2006.05.003. PMID 16887325.
- Colloca L, Benedetti F (July 2005). "Placebos and painkillers: is mind as real as matter?". Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 6 (7): 545–52. doi:10.1038/nrn1705. PMID 15995725.
- Benedetti F, Mayberg HS, Wager TD, Stohler CS, Zubieta JK (November 2005). "Neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo effect". The Journal of Neuroscience : the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 25 (45): 10390–402. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3458-05.2005. PMID 16280578.
- Murray D, Stoessl AJ (December 2013). "Mechanisms and therapeutic implications of the placebo effect in neurological and psychiatric conditions". Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 140 (3): 306–18. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.07.009. PMID 23880289.
- "nocebo". Mirriam-Webster Incorporated. Retrieved 22 January 2017.
- Häuser W, Hansen E, Enck P (June 2012). "Nocebo phenomena in medicine: their relevance in everyday clinical practice". Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 109 (26): 459–65. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0459. PMC . PMID 22833756.
- "The Nocebo Effect". Priory.com. 10 February 2007. Retrieved 2009-07-08.
- Shapiro AK, Chassan J, Morris LA, Frick R (1974). "Placebo induced side effects". Journal of Operational Psychiatry. 6: 43–6.
- Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Baldi S, Casadio C, Cavallo A, Mancuso M, Ruffini E, Oliaro A, Maggi G (April 1998). "The specific effects of prior opioid exposure on placebo analgesia and placebo respiratory depression". Pain. 75 (2-3): 313–9. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00010-4. PMID 9583767.
- Ockene JK, Barad DH, Cochrane BB, Larson JC, Gass M, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Manson JE, Barnabei VM, Lane DS, Brzyski RG, Rosal MC, Wylie-Rosett J, Hays J (July 2005). "Symptom experience after discontinuing use of estrogen plus progestin". JAMA. 294 (2): 183–93. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.183. PMID 16014592.
- Cousins N (1989). Head First. New York: E. P. Dutton. pp. 229–231.
- Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F (2008). "A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought". Annual Review of Psychology. 59 (1): 565–90. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941. PMID 17550344.
- Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, Johnson BT (February 2008). "Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration". PLoS Medicine. 5 (2): e45. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045. PMC . PMID 18303940.
- Turner EH, Rosenthal R (March 2008). "Efficacy of antidepressants". BMJ. 336 (7643): 516–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.39510.531597.80. PMC . PMID 18319297.
- Fountoulakis KN, Möller HJ (April 2011). "Efficacy of antidepressants: a re-analysis and re-interpretation of the Kirsch data". The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. 14 (3): 405–12. doi:10.1017/S1461145710000957. PMID 20800012.
- Khan A, Redding N, Brown WA (August 2008). "The persistence of the placebo response in antidepressant clinical trials". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 42 (10): 791–6. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2007.10.004. PMID 18036616.
- Rief W, Nestoriuc Y, Weiss S, Welzel E, Barsky AJ, Hofmann SG (November 2009). "Meta-analysis of the placebo response in antidepressant trials". Journal of Affective Disorders. 118 (1-3): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2009.01.029. PMID 19246102.
- Cho HJ, Hotopf M, Wessely S (2005). "The placebo response in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (PDF). Psychosomatic Medicine. 67 (2): 301–13. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000156969.76986.e0. PMID 15784798.
- Jacobs B (April 2000). "Biblical origins of placebo". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 93 (4): 213–4. doi:10.1177/014107680009300419. PMC . PMID 10844895.
- Shapiro AK (1968). "Semantics of the placebo". The Psychiatric Quarterly. 42 (4): 653–95. doi:10.1007/BF01564309. PMID 4891851.
- Kaptchuk TJ (June 1998). "Powerful placebo: the dark side of the randomised controlled trial". Lancet. 351 (9117): 1722–5. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10111-8. PMID 9734904.
- Beauregard M (2012). Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over the Existence of the Mind and the Proof That Will Change the Way We Live Our Lives. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-06-207156-9.
- de Craen AJ, Kaptchuk TJ, Tijssen JG, Kleijnen J (October 1999). "Placebos and placebo effects in medicine: historical overview". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 92 (10): 511–5. PMC . PMID 10692902.
- Booth C (August 2005). "The rod of Aesculapios: John Haygarth (1740-1827) and Perkins' metallic tractors". Journal of Medical Biography. 13 (3): 155–61. doi:10.1258/j.jmb.2005.04-01. PMID 16059528.
- Haygarth, J., Of the Imagination, as a Cause and as a Cure of Disorders of the Body; Exemplified by Fictitious Tractors, and Epidemical Convulsions Archived 2013-12-15 at the Wayback Machine., Crutwell, (Bath), 1800.
- T. C. Graves (1920). "Commentary on a case of Hystero-epilepsy with delayed puberty". The Lancet. 196 (5075): 1135. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)00108-8. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
- Michael D. Yapko (2012). Trancework: An Introduction to the Practice of Clinical Hypnosis. Routledge. p. 123. ISBN 9780415884945.
- Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller F, Benedetti F (February 2010). "Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects". Lancet. 375 (9715): 686–95. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61706-2. PMC . PMID 20171404.
- Kaptchuk TJ (1998). "Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 72 (3): 389–433. doi:10.1353/bhm.1998.0159. PMID 9780448.
- Evans, Dylan (2003). Placebo: the belief effect. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-712612-3.
- Benedetti F (March 1996). "The opposite effects of the opiate antagonist naloxone and the cholecystokinin antagonist proglumide on placebo analgesia". Pain. 64 (3): 535–43. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(95)00179-4. PMID 8783319.
- Levine JD, Gordon NC, Bornstein JC, Fields HL (July 1979). "Role of pain in placebo analgesia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 76 (7): 3528–31. Bibcode:1979PNAS...76.3528L. doi:10.1073/pnas.76.7.3528. PMC . PMID 291020.
- Doongaji DR, Vahia VN, Bharucha MP (April 1978). "On placebos, placebo responses and placebo responders. (A review of psychological, psychopharmacological and psychophysiological factors). I. Psychological factors". Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. 24 (2): 91–7. PMID 364041.
- Hoffman GA, Harrington A, Fields HL (2005). "Pain and the placebo: what we have learned". Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 48 (2): 248–65. doi:10.1353/pbm.2005.0054. PMID 15834197.
- Zubieta JK, Yau WY, Scott DJ, Stohler CS (January 2006). "Belief or Need? Accounting for individual variations in the neurochemistry of the placebo effect". Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 20 (1): 15–26. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2005.08.006. PMID 16242910.
- Rheims S, Cucherat M, Arzimanoglou A, Ryvlin P (August 2008). Klassen T, ed. "Greater response to placebo in children than in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis in drug-resistant partial epilepsy". PLoS Medicine. 5 (8): e166. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050166. PMC . PMID 18700812.
- Whalley B, Hyland ME, Kirsch I (May 2008). "Consistency of the placebo effect". Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 64 (5): 537–41. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.11.007. PMID 18440407.
- Vase L, Riley JL, Price DD (October 2002). "A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia". Pain. 99 (3): 443–52. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00205-1. PMID 12406519.
- Gensini GF, Conti AA, Conti A (April 2005). "Past and present of what will please the lord: an updated history of the concept of placebo". Minerva Medica. 96 (2): 121–4. PMID 16172581.
- Harper, Douglas. "placebo". Online Etymology Dictionary.
- placeo. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
|Look up placebo in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.|
|Wikiquote has quotations related to: Placebo effect|
- Harvard-wide Program in Placebo Studies & the Therapeutic Encounter
- The Placebo Effect at the Skeptic's Dictionary
- The Placebo Effect explained on YouTube
- Placebos: cracking the code part 1 part 2 BBC/Discovery channel program
- "Placebos are getting more effective. Drugmakers are desperate to know why." Wired magazine on the power of the placebo. Retrieved 2010-07-22
- Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects The Lancet (2010)