3 ms·
This article brings up a very important point, and I'm grateful that it was submitted here. The professor of pediatrics who wrote the article is onto some impor
by tokenadult 12y ago
This article brings up a very important point, and I'm grateful that it was submitted here. The professor of pediatrics who wrote the article is onto some important issues, and I was especially glad he cited some of the research literature with direct links. Reading a review he cited,[1] I see that one of the problems here is the vagueness of what he calls "improvement" in many medical studies. Is the treatment endpoint of a knee operation patients moving better than they used to, as measured by trained observers watching the patients do standardized movements? Or is "improvement" a patient self-report of less pain? Several of the examples the author writes about are examples of treatments indicated to relieve pain (angina, which is chest pain, or lower back pain, and it looks like most of the knee surgery he mainly focuses on was also done to relieve patient-reported pain). Patient self-reported pain is a symptom, a matter important to the patient, but it is not a diagnostic sign that can be objectively observed by anyone else (as, for example, blood pressure or white cell count can be objectively observed).
Too many medical studies, and almost all "alternative medicine" testimonials, are based on soft endpoints (patient self-reports of improvement) rather than on "hard endpoints" (longer healthier life after reduction in all-cause mortality, or resuming walking after being paralyzed, or something observable objectively and lastingly important).
Pretty much all studies by all authors of whatever researcher background that appear to show a "placebo effect" show that only for patient-reported subjective symptoms that are usually temporary anyway like pain and nausea. Nobody asks for a placebo treatment for a broken leg or a life-threatening infection. The medical researchers who look at the issue with proper study designs and statistical controls know that placebos are essentially useless, as they at most have influence just on self-reported subjective symptoms, not on any sign that affects the progression of a disease or maintenance of good health.[2]
Findings on placebo effects by researchers who have considered the issue carefully include
"Despite the spin of the authors – these results put placebo medicine into crystal clear perspective, and I think they are generalizable and consistent with other placebo studies. For objective physiological outcomes, there is no significant placebo effect. Placebos are no better than no treatment at all."[3]
"We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed."[4]
So, yes, let's make sure that studies of surgical techniques include studies of sham surgery. (Studies of acupuncture had better always have sham acupuncture arms in which "real" acupuncture points are disregarded or other aspects of supposedly ancient Chinese technique are intentionally omitted without the patient knowing that.) This will improve the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of new surgical techniques. Just don't assume that ANY placebo is ever good for ANYTHING that you couldn't achieve just by giving yourself a good pep talk.
[1] http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3253 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3253
[2] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/michael-specter-on-the-placebo-effect/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/michael-specter-on-the-p...
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ted-kaptchuk-versus-placebo-effects-again/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ted-kaptchuk-versus-plac...
[3] http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and-fall-of-placebo-medicine/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and-fa...
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091554 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091554
- pella 12y ago"- Administration of placebos should be considered when a patient is refractory to standard treatment, suffers from its side effects, or is in a situation where standard treatment does not exist." from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/4/219.full http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/4/219.full "The moral case for the clinical placebo"
- tokenadult 12y agoThanks for the link. I note that it reports, "Nevertheless, it is important to mention that according to an influential 2001 meta-analysis comparing placebo-treatment arms with no treatment, placebos make no clinical difference." The citation at that sentence is to an article that lives online in free full text[1] that we can all download and read. The same team's updated Cochrane review[2] still sums up the evidence by saying, "We found an effect on patient-reported outcomes, especially on pain. Several trials of low risk of bias reported large effects of placebo on pain, but other similar trials reported negligible effect of placebo, indicating the importance of background factors." They add a caution about experimental methods consistent with the article submitted here on HN: "The use of placebos in blinded randomised trials is a precaution directed against many forms of bias, and not only against effects of placebo. Unblinded patients may differ from blinded ones in their way of reporting beneficial and harmful effects of treatment, in their tendency to seek additional treatment outside the study, and in their risk of dropping out of the study. Furthermore, unblinded staff may differ in their use of alternative forms of care and in their assessment of outcomes. Thus, even if there were no true effect of placebo, one would expect to record differences between placebo and no-treatment groups due to bias associated with lack of blinding." [1] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~doyle/docs/40/PlaceboArticle.pdf https://math.dartmouth.edu/~doyle/docs/40/PlaceboArticle.pdf [2] http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003974/COMMUN_placebo-interventions-for-all-clinical-conditions http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003974/COMMUN_placebo-interv...
- pella 12y agoplacebo paradoxon- different teams - different conclusions :) I agree with this: "It is evident that placebo effects are real and that they have therapeutic potential. Laboratory evidence supports the existence of numerous placebo mechanisms and effects in both healthy volunteers and patients with a variety of medical conditions. Furthermore, clinically relevant evidence demonstrates that placebo effects can have meaningful therapeutic effects, by virtue of magnitude and duration, in different patient populations. Although substantial progress has been made in understanding placebo effects, considerable scientific work remains to be done in both laboratory experiments and translational clinical trial research, ---> with the ultimate aim of harnessing placebo effects to improve patient care." Damien G Finniss,corresponding author Ted J Kaptchuk, Franklin Miller, and Fabrizio Benedetti "Placebo Effects: Biological, Clinical and Ethical Advances" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2832199/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2832199/