4.1 Article

Do placebo responders exist?

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 587-595

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.02.002

关键词

placebo effect; placebo responder; research design; clinical trials; asthma

资金

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [1 K24 AT004095, 1 R21 AT002564, 1 R21 AT002793-01A1, K24 AT004095] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The placebo effect has been the subject of much controversy. For a scientific investigation of placebo effects to advance it is important to establish whether a placebo response in any particular illness is reliable - i.e., if there is a response to a single placebo administration there will also be a placebo response to the repeated administration of a similar placebo in similar conditions. A positive answer would allow more sophisticated clinical trial designs and more precise basic research experiments on the placebo effect. This article reviews experiments that used multiple administrations of placebo to answer the question do reliable placebo responders exist? This paper also examines the evidence for the existence of a consistent placebo responder, i.e. a person who responds to placebo in one situation will respond in another condition or using a different type of placebo ritual. Much of the existing evidence for these two questions was performed before 1967. This early evidence is contradictory, methodologically weak and is sufficiently old to be considered medical history. Since 1969, at least eight experiments exposed asthma patients to multiple administrations of placebo given with deceptive suggestions that the treatment was an active medication. While the results of this research are not unequivocal, and may not be equivalent to non-deceptive conditions, this line of inquiry suggests that if a reliable and consistent placebo response exists it could be detected within this population. Finally, this paper proposes one model to rigorously investigate the stability of placebo responses. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据