4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The placebo effect in irritable bowel syndrome trials: a meta-analysis

Journal

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 332-340

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2005.00650.x

Keywords

irritable bowel syndrome; meta-analysis; placebo

Funding

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [1 R21 AT002860-01, 1 R01 AT01414-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite the apparent high placebo response rate in 'randomized placebo-con trolled trials (RCT) of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), little is known about the variability and predictors of this response. Objectives: To describe the magnitude of response in placebo arms of IBS clinical trials and to identify which factors predict the variability of the placebo response. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of published, English language, RCT with 20 or more IBS patients who were treated for at least 2 weeks. This analysis is limited to studies that assessed global response (improvement in overall symptoms). The variables considered as potential placebo modifiers were study design, study duration, use of a run-in phase, Jadad score, entry criteria, number of office visits, number of office visits/study duration, use of diagnostic testing, gender, age and type of medication studied. Findings: Forty-five placebo-con trolled RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The placebo response ranged from 16.0 to 71.4% with a population-weighted average of 40.2%, 95% CI (35.9-44.4). Significant associations with lower placebo response rates were fulfilment of the Rome criteria for study entry (P = 0.049) and an increased number of office visits (P = 0.026). Conclusions: Placebo effects in IBS clinical trials measuring a global outcome are highly variable. Entry criteria and number of office visits are significant predictors of the placebo response. More stringent entry criteria and an increased number of office visits appear to independently decrease the placebo response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available