Article

An examination of the observed placebo effect associated with the treatment of low back pain - a systematic review.

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pain research & management: the journal of the Canadian Pain Society = journal de la societe canadienne pour le traitement de la douleur (Impact Factor: 1.39). 01/2011; 16(1):45-52.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether the nonspecific effects that occur following the use of sham interventions to treat nonspecific low back pain (LBP) are large enough to be considered clinically meaningful.
Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomized placebo-controlled trials of interventions for LBP that used sham ultrasound, sham laser or sham drug therapy as the placebo control. Study selection was accomplished via independent evaluation of scientific admissibility by three reviewers and final decisions of inclusion were based on consensus.
None of the studies using sham ultrasound as the placebo control in the treatment of LBP were acceptable for inclusion. Twelve studies were included in the present evaluation of the placebo effect - eight trials that met the strict inclusion criteria for best evidence (three using sham laser placebo and five using sham medication placebo) and four sham medication studies that 'just missed' the inclusion criteria for best evidence. Although the evidence from studies using sham laser was inconclusive, the present review did find a clinically meaningful change in LBP scores following the use of sham oral medications.
The present best-evidence review found a clinically meaningful change in pain scores following the use of sham oral medications for the treatment of nonspecific LBP. This finding suggests that further clinical research is warranted to identify which patient subgroups could benefit most from such treatment and to distinguish the true contribution of the placebo effect from other nonspecific effects.

Full-text

Available from: Aaron A Puhl, Jun 10, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
85 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To characterize the types of control procedures used in controlled clinical trials of cervical spine manipulation and to evaluate the outcomes obtained by subjects in control groups so as to improve the quality of future clinical trials A search of relevant clinical trials was performed in PubMed 1966-May 2010 with the following key words: "Chiropractic"[Mesh] OR "Manipulation, Spinal"[Mesh]) AND "Clinical Trial "[Publication Type]. Reference lists from these trials were searched for any additional trials. The reference lists of two prior studies, one review and one original study were also searched. Accepted reports were then rated for quality by 2 reviewers using the PEDro scale. Studies achieving a score of >50% were included for data extraction and analysis. Intra-group change scores on pain outcomes were obtained. For determining clinically important outcomes, a threshold of 20% improvement was used where continuous data were available; otherwise, an effect size of 0.30 was employed The PubMed search yielded 753 citations of which 13 were selected. Eight (8) other studies were identified by reviewing two systematic reviews and through reference searches. All studies scored >50% on the PEDro scale. There were 9 multi-session studies and 12 single-session studies. The most commonly used control procedure was "manual contact/no thrust". Four (4) studies used a placebo-control (patient blinded). For two of these studies with VAS data, the average change reported was 4.5 mm. For the other control procedures, variable results were obtained. No clinically important changes were reported in 57% of the paired comparisons, while, in 43% of these, changes which would be considered clinically important were obtained in the control groups. Only 15% of trials reported on post-intervention group registration. Most control procedures in cervical manipulation trials result in small clinical changes, although larger changes are observed in 47% of paired comparisons. The vast majority of studies do not result in subject blinding; the effect of unmasking of control subjects in these studies makes the interpretation of the existing clinical trials challenging. The greatest majority of trials do not report on post-intervention blinding. A small number of candidate procedures for effective control interventions exist. Much more research is required to improve this important aspect of clinical trial methodology in cervical manipulation studies.
    01/2011; 19(1):3. DOI:10.1186/2045-709X-19-3
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chiropractic care is a complex health intervention composed of both treatment effects and non-specific, or placebo, effects. While doctor-patient interactions are a component of the non-specific effects of chiropractic, these effects are not evaluated in most clinical trials. This study aimed to: 1) develop an instrument to assess practitioner-patient interactions; 2) determine the equivalence of a chiropractor's verbal interactions and treatment delivery for participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic groups; and 3) describe the perceptions of a treatment-masked evaluator and study participants regarding treatment group assignment. We conducted an observational analysis of digital video-recordings derived from study visits conducted during a pilot randomized trial of conservative therapies for temporomandibular pain. A theory-based, iterative process developed the 13-item Chiropractor Interaction and Treatment Equivalence Instrument. A trained evaluator masked to treatment assignment coded video-recordings of clinical encounters between one chiropractor and multiple visits of 26 participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic treatment groups. Non-parametric statistics were calculated. The trial ran from January 2010 to October 2011. We analyzed 111 complete video-recordings (54 active, 57 sham). Chiropractor interactions differed between the treatment groups in 7 categories. Active participants received more interactions with clinical information (8 vs. 4) or explanations (3.5 vs. 1) than sham participants within the therapeutic domain. Active participants received more directions (63 vs. 58) and adjusting instrument thrusts (41.5 vs. 23) in the procedural domain and more optimistic (2.5 vs. 0) or neutral (7.5 vs. 5) outcome statements in the treatment effectiveness domain. Active participants recorded longer visit durations (13.5 vs. 10 minutes). The evaluator correctly identified 61% of active care video-recordings as active treatments but categorized only 31% of the sham treatments correctly. Following the first treatment, 82% of active and 11% of sham participants correctly identified their treatment group. At 2-months, 93% of active and 42% of sham participants correctly identified their group assignment. Our findings show the feasibility of evaluating doctor-patient interactions in chiropractic clinical trials using video-recordings and standardized instrumentation. Clinical trial design and clinician training protocols should improve and assess the equivalence of doctor-patient interactions between treatment groups. This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01021306 on 24 November 2009.
    12/2014; 22(1):42. DOI:10.1186/s12998-014-0042-7
  • Source
    Journal of bodywork and movement therapies 10/2012; 16(4):409-10. DOI:10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.01.001