Consideration in Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial on Neck Pain to Avoid the Placebo Effect in Analgesic Action

Background: In neck pain treatment, many therapies are focused on etiology, while it is well-known that placebo analgesia is also present in these therapies. The specific efficacy for etiology may be underestimated by ignoring their actual placebo effect. In this study, a logistic regression analysis is used to explore the risk factors causing different placebo responses in patients with neck pain among two RCTs. The probability of the placebo effect is predicted based on these risk factors.

Methods: Trial A and Trial B were similarly designed, randomized, double-/single-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients treating neck pain with Qishe pill or Shi-style manipulation. Both studies set a placebo pill twice a day or traction for every other day as control. For further analyses on the placebo effect in neck pain management, logistic regression was used to assess subgroup-placebo interactions. The odds ratio assessed a significant influence on the placebo effect.

Results: In this pooled analysis, the total number of patients recruited for these two studies was 284, of which 162 patients received placebo treatment (placebo drug or traction for every other day). No statistically significant differences are found at baseline between the participants with placebo effect and non-placebo effect in the gender, age, and disease duration except in VAS and NDI at the initial time. There are numerically more patients with placebo effect in the shorter disease duration subgroup (< 4 months [76%]), higher initial VAS subgroup (>60 mm [90%]), and worse initial NDI subgroup (>24 [72%]) compared with the gender and age subgroup. An ROC curve is established to assess the model-data fit, which shows an area under the curve of 0.755 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.677–0.830. Participants who show placebo effect after 2 weeks have significantly lower VAS scores after 4 weeks, while there is no significant difference in NDI improvement between the two groups after 4 weeks.

Conclusion: Neck pain patients with shorter disease duration are more likely to overscore their pain severity, because of their less experience in pain perception, tolerance, and analgesia expectation.

Introduction

Neck pain is known as pain in the neck with or without upper limb disorders, which may last for several days (Hoy et al., 2014; Safiri et al., 2020). Neck pain has been considered the fourth most common cause of disability in the United States, according to the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study (Safiri et al., 2020). Notably, women are more likely to experience neck pain, with peak prevalence occurring in middle age (Fejer et al., 2006; Hogg-Johnson et al., 2008). Neck pain can be classified by etiology as mechanical, neuropathic, or secondary (such as pain from cardiac or vascular disease). Most acute neck pain episodes resolve with or without treatment, but nearly 50 percent continue to experience some degree of pain or occur frequently (Cohen, 2015; Fehlings et al., 2021).

In neck pain treatment, many therapies are more focused on etiology, such as nerve root compression, muscle spasm, inflammation, and so on, while it is well-known that placebo analgesia also induces discrete physiological changes mediated by the endogenous opioids system, which is called as placebo effect (Benedetti et al., 2005; Sauro and Greenberg. 2005; Tracey. 2010; Carlino et al., 2011; Benedetti. 2013), but its specific efficacy on etiology of neck pain is limited. Therefore, most of the RCTs for pain treatment were designed to evaluate the specific etiological efficacy by comparing with a placebo.

Regarding therapies such as placebo, there are various forms such as sugar pills, saliva injection, or sham surgeries (Harrington, 1997; Finniss, 2013; Benedetti. 2014), which are typically conceptualized as inactive treatments that are used as controls for the active treatment. The placebo effect is about how patients perceive and experience the treatment through their senses, and actively incorporate their previous experiences and current expectations with it (Vase et al., 2014; Shaibani et al., 2017). However, there are currently several challenges and questions on some of the main concerns of the placebo group in RCTs (Rief et al., 2011; Enck et al., 2013; Vase et al., 2015a; Benedetti et al., 2016; Blease et al., 2017). Many meta-analyses have been done over the years to study the extent of placebo responses in RCTs, whose results have been contradictory while some have positive results (Walsh et al., 2002; Silberman, 2009; Hauser et al., 2011; Tuttle et al., 2015) and some have negative results (Vase et al., 2015b).

RCTs for pain treatment are commonly used placebo to identify the specific efficacy of the placebo effect, in which all the settings, providers, and subjects’ baseline are designed with the same and homogenous conditions to ensure comparable as possible (Trochim and Donnelly. 2001). However, the specific efficacy for etiology may be underestimated by ignoring their actual placebo effect. To detect placebo response, some approaches were used in the previous studies (Vase et al., 2002; Vase et al., 2009; Simpson et al., 2014; Gerdesmeyer et al., 2017), including identifying patients’ disease histories, increasing sample size, or setting a non-treatment group. However, these methods were still hard to achieve the purpose of reducing the placebo response in comparison (Simpson et al., 2014). It is evident that many variables could affect the extent of the placebo effect (Vase et al., 2002; Vase et al., 2009) and it is related to how patients perceive the therapeutic intervention (Vase et al., 2014; Shaibani et al., 2017).

Our research team has conducted two randomized placebo-controlled trials on neck pain. To further investigate the analgesic effect of the placebo treatment itself, we combined all the participants’ data in the respective placebo treatment group of these two RCTs for a pooled analysis. Patients receiving placebo treatment were divided into two groups according to self-reported pain relief after 2 weeks. We hypothesized that considerable pain relief in the placebo treatment group may exist placebo effect. Therefore, in this study, a logistic regression analysis was used to explore the risk factors causing different placebo responses in patients with neck pain among two retrospective, blind, placebo-control RCTs. The probability of the placebo effect was predicted based on the risk factors.

Methods

Patients and Study Design

Detailed design and clinical results of Trial A and Trial B have been reported (Cui et al., 2013; Yao et al., 2020).

Trial A and Trial B shared many study design elements, allowing for integrated analyses. Briefly, both trials were randomized, blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2 studies. These studies were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The institutional review board or independent ethics committee at each site approved the protocols, and all patients provided written informed consent. All authors had access to the study data and have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Trial A and Trial B were conducted in patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR), with the primary objective of evaluating the efficacy of Qishe pill (3.75 g, twice a day, bid) or Shi-style manipulation (60 min, every other day, qod) versus placebo (3.75 g, twice a day, bid) or traction (60 min, every other day, qod) as measured by the proportion of patients who became neck pain-free and most neck-related hypofunction at 4 weeks. The placebo and active treatment arms received either the same strength of Qishe pill/shi-style manipulation or placebo/traction (1:1 ratio).

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

All participants were selected from the general outpatient clinic in the five hospitals across China (Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of TCM; Huadong Hospital, Fudan University; Affiliated Hospital of the Changchun University of TCM; Gansu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine; and Suzhou TCM Hospital Affiliated to the Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine), where the patients will be diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy confirmed by a neurologist, and then diagnosed based upon clinical symptoms, physical examination on nerve signs, and imaging (Carette and Fehlings. 2005).

Inclusion criteria are age between 18 and 65 years, pain or stiffness in the neck for at least 2 weeks, neck symptoms reproducible during physical examination, and neck pain on neck disability index (NDI) of 18 or more. Further inclusion prerequisites are willingness for treatment and to adhere to measurement regimens, no involvement in litigation, and written informed consent. Excluded criteria are patients whose history, signs, and symptoms suggested a potential non-benign cause (including previous neck surgery) or evidence of a specific pathologic condition.

Details of Placebo Intervention

At randomization, patients will be assigned to receive Qishe pills (or matching placebo) at 3.75 g twice per day. In this study, the same outer packing will be used for both the Qishe pill and the matching placebo. Therefore, the treating physicians, participants, and investigators will be blinded to treatment assignment.

In Trial A, the placebo is composed of β-cyclodextrin, colorants, and food flavoring, to look and taste similar to the Qishe pill, which is a thin 0.15 g film-coated pill with a slight odor and bitter taste. The Qishe pill and matching placebo used in the trial are both manufactured and provided by a pharmaceutical company that meets the requirements of Good Manufacturing Practice. All significant medicine information, including ingredient composition, heavy metals, etc., are provided by the same company.

In Trial B, patients in the traction treatment group received intermittent cervical traction (ICT) for 20 min, every other day for 4 weeks. A previous Cochrane systematic review reported that mechanical traction presents little effect on neck pain, while it is still believed to be clinically effective (Graham et al., 2008). As a result, we put this control group as a placebo control. Traction was given in supine lying, as this is one of the most comfortable positions during cervical traction. Parameters of intermittent cervical traction: traction poundage ranging from 10 to 20% of the patient’s body weight, holding time: 10–25 s; resting time: 20–50% of holding; resting poundage: 20–40% of traction poundage. The exact parameters (within the above range) were determined by the treating physiotherapist, who had at least 5 years of clinical experience in treating patients with neck pain.

Study Evaluations and Analyses

The primary study outcome is pain severity (measured with a visual analog scale, VAS). Secondary outcomes are a composite of functional status (measured by NDI), patient satisfaction, and adverse events as reported in the trial. The visual analog scale measures the amount of pain, which is a pain score ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 mm (very severe pain) (Gould et al., 2001).

Operationally, the VAS score is displayed as a horizontal line, 100 mm in length, with word descriptors anchored at each end. The patient marks on the line the point that they feel represents their perception of their current pain. The VAS score is then determined by measuring in millimeters from the left end of the line to the point that the patient marks. The VAS score and NDI will be measured at all the measurement points (baseline, 2 and 4 weeks of treatment duration). Patients were not shown their previous scores when they went for the current assessment.

Statistical Analysis

Data handling rules and full analysis methods were previously described in Cui et al. (2013) and Yao et al. (2020). Standard statistical techniques will be used to describe the characteristics of patients in both groups. We will compare baseline characteristics in both groups and if incomparability appears, we will perform the secondary analysis, adjusting for differences. The primary outcome, the amount of pain, will be compared between both groups using analysis of variance for repeated measures in each visit (week2 and week4). Efficacy analyses were conducted in the modified Intent-to-Treat population consisting of patients who took placebo treatment for 4 weeks and had at least 2 post-dose efficacy assessments after 2 and 4 weeks. For the analyses of active placebo effect freedom in subgroups by age, disease duration, and severity, the p-value was calculated for placebo-by-subgroup interaction, based on logistic regression with terms for study, subgroup, and placebo-by-subgroup in the model. The odds ratio assessed a significant influence on the placebo effect. The odds ratio (OR) and the flag of p-value > 0.05 Hosmer and Lemeshow test for homogeneity of OR are displayed. ORs were created with the probability of the active placebo effect as the numerator and the actual incidence of the active placebo effect as the denominator.

To detect patients who are easy to respond to placebo therapies, a predictive model was constructed based on the multivariable logistic regression coefficients. The predictive performance of the model was quantified with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), which ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 for sensible models. The internal validity of the model was assessed by bootstrapping techniques (Steyerberg, 2008). Model performance in the validation set was quantified with respect to discrimination (AUC) and calibration. Calibration was assessed graphically by plotting observed frequencies against predicted probabilities.

Tests with 2-sided p-values less than 0.05 are referred to as having statistical significance for a factor difference unless otherwise noted. However, p-values should not be overinterpreted for covariate analyses.

Results

Baseline Patient Characteristics

The total number of patients recruited for these two studies was 284. The details on patient recruitment, follow-up, and selection during the posthoc analysis are summarized in Figure 1. Thirty participates’ withdrawal (17 in Qishe pill placebo; 13 in traction placebo) included insufficient time, concurrent treatment, and non-conformance to the pooled analysis criteria. Finally, there are 102 participates in the Qishe pill placebo group and 60 participants in the traction placebo group.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1. Participant flow and pooled analysis procedure.

Demographics of the patients at baseline are described in Table 1, which shows median values and quartile (25%, 75%) of the age, disease duration, VAS, and NDI.

TABLE 1

TABLE 1. Summary of demographic information of the patients in different placebo effects.

No statistically significant differences were found at baseline between the participates with active placebo effect and non-placebo effect in the gender (p > 0.05), age (p > 0.05) and disease duration (p > 0.05) except in VAS and NDI at the initial time (p < 0.05).

Likely Active Placebo Effect Incidence by Patient Demographic Categories

Assessment of Model-Data Fit

Table 2 shows the active placebo effect probability with different factors after a 2-week placebo treatment. There was no statistical difference in the frequency of likely active placebo effect either in the subgroups of gender and age. There were numerically more patients with active placebo effect in the relatively shorter disease duration subgroup (<4 months [76%]), higher initial VAS subgroup (>60 mm [90%]), and worse initial NDI subgroup (>24 [72%]) compared with the gender and age subgroup.

TABLE 2

TABLE 2. Summary and analysis of likely active placebo effect.

A series of the likelihood ratio is derived from the predictive model as above, which provides pairs of sensitivity and specificity from these factors. An ROC curve was established to assess the model-data fit, which showed an area under the curve of 0.755 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.677–0.830 (Figure 2). Thus, the accuracy of this predictive model is quite well.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2. ROC curve of model fitting for active placebo effect prediction of goodness-of-fit test.

Hosmer–Lemeshow test was used to assess the goodness of fit of the model, which showed that the chi-square value is 9.838 with a degree of freedom of 8 (p = 0.277, not less than the test level of 0.05 (Table 3). Thus, it is considered the goodness of fit of the model is high, which means that the information in the current data has been fully extracted.

TABLE 3

TABLE 3. Contingency table for Hosmer–Lemeshow test.

Persistent of Active Placebo Response

To further investigate how long the active placebo effect lasts, the changing trend of VAS and NDI were analyzed after the second 2 weeks. In terms of pain relief and function improvement, participants who show an active placebo effect after 2 weeks had significantly lower VAS scores, while there was no significant difference in NDI improvement between the two groups (Shown in Table 4).

TABLE 4

TABLE 4. Summary and comparison of VAS and NDI at all the placebo-treatment visit.

Discussion

This study pooled data from two placebo-controlled randomized trials on the treatment of patients with neck pain, a matching placebo for the control of the Qishe pill (a proprietary Chinese medicine), and ICT for the control of Shi-style manipulation (a traditional Chinese medicine manipulation). Both interventions have been identified as placebo treatments in previous studies (Harrington. 1997; Finniss, 2013; Benedetti, 2014).

In these two RCTs for neck pain, we found that some patients with short disease duration may overscore their pain severity, who may also report a large improvement in pain and function, even in the placebo group. Extracted and re-divided into two groups based on whether there was a substantial improvement in pain after 2 weeks to define whether there was a “placebo effect”, using the subjects’ baseline information as a potential risk factor, a logistic regression analysis was used to explore the risk factors causing different placebo response, and probability of placebo effect was predicted based on these risk factors.

This study presented a reasonable and objective method to quantify and evaluate the perception and the expectation in placebo therapy, which showed that pain severity and disease duration are the two most important factors in placebo responses. Neck pain patients with shorter disease duration may be hard to describe their perception of pain, which may probably overscore in their first self-report and easily decrease the pain score after a 2-week placebo treatment with their expectations. On this basis, in the recruitment process, it is necessary to exclude neck pain patients with shorter disease duration, who present extremely high self-reported pain. If patients have finished all the treatment and follow-ups, in the statistic process, some weighted conversion from the probability of placebo response may take place of a simple “A-B” efficacy difference between two groups.

These results on the probability of placebo effect interpreted effect on different pain perception, tolerance, and expectation, which may be related to individual emotion status and disease duration. Patients’ perceptions of the treatment may directly influence the outcome, which may be influenced by treatment description (Bausell et al., 2005) and verbal suggestions (Bingel et al., 2011). Studies of patients with chronic pain from neuropathic pain (Kupers et al., 2007; Petersen et al., 2012) reported some similar involvement of expectations in emotions (Vase et al., 2005; Kupers et al., 2007; Skyt et al., 2018). Other studies have shown that endogenous opioid and non-opioid mechanisms are associated with placebo analgesia (Peciña and Zubieta. 2015). When a patient takes a placebo therapy, positive expectations and conditioning activate these neurobiological systems and induce a series of physiological changes that are maintained by reward learning, leading to analgesia and improvement of psychological status. This reward mechanism may be weakened with disease lasting and expectations decreasing. The placebo effect can be enhanced or abolished through active topical or opioid analgesia from positive or negative expectations. However, patients’ expectations toward treatment outcomes in RCTs are usually not assessed.

Our study has limitations, first, the participants we investigated are only patients with neck pain; second, the sample size is moderate to conduct this analysis. Despite the limitations, these studies provide insight into the potential placebo effect in patients with neck pain. In order to verify the accuracy of placebo effect detection, a more accurate objective measurement of pain and its related brain functional MRI will be used for further investigation, which may reveal specific processes of analgesia (pain perception, pain tolerance, or pain induction) with accurate evidence (Amanzio et al., 2013; Jubb and Bensing. 2013; Buchel et al., 2014). Also, future clinical trials will need to take into account patients’ disease duration and self-reported pain severity to screen participants with high expectations for pain relief.

Conclusion

In summary, a logistic regression analysis has shown that disease duration of neck pain is the most risk to present an excessive placebo effect in management. Neck pain patients with shorter disease duration are more likely to overscore their pain severity, because of their less experience in pain perception, tolerance, and analgesia expectation.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by IRB of Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of TCM. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

Y-LS, MY, and Y-FZ conducted the study and wrote the manuscript, they contributed equally to this work as co-first authors. J-TL, XC, JH, W-HW, and Y-XD collected data and provided clinical assistance. M-CY and Z-BM processed all the blinded statistical analyses. Y-JW and X-JC initiated and oversaw the study.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC1704300) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81804115,81930116), the Shanghai Sailing Program (18YF1423800), the Program for Innovative Research Team of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2015RA4002), the Program for Innovative Research Team of the Ministry of Education of China (IRT1270), the Municipal Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai-TCM Key Project (16401970100), the Shanghai TCM Medical Center of Chronic Disease (2017ZZ01010), and the Essential Drug Research and Development from the Ministry of Science and Technology (2019ZX09201004-003-032).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Amanzio, M., Benedetti, F., Porro, C. A., Palermo, S., and Cauda, F. (2013). Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of Brain Correlates of Placebo Analgesia in Human Experimental Pain. Hum. Brain Mapp. 34, 738–752. doi:10.1002/hbm.21471

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bausell, R. B., Lao, L., Bergman, S., Lee, W. L., and Berman, B. M. (2005). Is Acupuncture Analgesia an Expectancy Effect? Preliminary Evidence Based on Participants' Perceived Assignments in Two Placebo-Controlled Trials. Eval. Health Prof. 28 (1), 9–26. doi:10.1177/0163278704273081

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benedetti, F., Carlino, E., and Piedimonte, A. (2016). Increasing Uncertainty in CNS Clinical Trials: the Role of Placebo, Nocebo, and Hawthorne Effects. Lancet Neurol. 15 (7), 736–747. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(16)00066-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benedetti, F., Mayberg, H. S., Wager, T. D., Stohler, C. S., and Zubieta, J. K. (2005). Neurobiological Mechanisms of the Placebo Effect. J. Neurosci. 25, 10390–10402. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3458-05.2005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benedetti, F. (2013). Placebo and the New Physiology of the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Physiol. Rev. 93, 1207–1246. doi:10.1152/physrev.00043.2012

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benedetti, F. (2014). Placebo Effects. Understanding the Mechanisms in Health and Disease. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Bingel, U., Wanigasekera, V., Wiech, K., Ni Mhuircheartaigh, R., Lee, M. C., Ploner, M., et al. (2011). The Effect of Treatment Expectation on Drug Efficacy: Imaging the Analgesic Benefit of the Opioid Remifentanil. Sci. Transl Med. 3 (70), 70ra14. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001244

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blease, C. R., Bishop, F. L., and Kaptchuk, T. J. (2017). Informed Consent and Clinical Trials: where Is the Placebo Effect? BMJ 356, j463. doi:10.1136/bmj.j463

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Büchel, C., Geuter, S., Sprenger, C., and Eippert, F. (2014). Placebo Analgesia: A Predictive Coding Perspective. Neuron 81, 1223–1239. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.042

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carette, S., and Fehlings, M. G. (2005). Clinical Practice. Cervical Radiculopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 353 (4), 392–399. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp043887

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlino, E., Pollo, A., and Benedetti, F. (2011). Placebo Analgesia and beyond: A Melting Pot of Concepts and Ideas for Neuroscience. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol 24, 540–544. doi:10.1097/ACO.0b013e328349d0c2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen, S. P. (2015). Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Neck Pain. Mayo Clin. Proc. 90 (2), 284–299. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.09.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cui, X. J., Sun, Y. L., You, S. F., Mo, W., Lu, S., Shi, Q., et al. (2013). Effects of Qishe Pill, a Compound Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine, on Cervical Radiculopathy: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Trials 14, 322. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-322

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Enck, P., Bingel, U., Schedlowski, M., and Rief, W. (2013). The Placebo Response in Medicine: Minimize, Maximize or Personalize? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12 (3), 191–204. doi:10.1038/nrd3923

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fehlings, M. G., Badhiwala, J. H., Ahn, H., Farhadi, H. F., Shaffrey, C. I., Nassr, A., et al. (2021). Safety and Efficacy of Riluzole in Patients Undergoing Decompressive Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (CSM-Protect): a Multicentre, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomised, Phase 3 Trial. Lancet Neurol. 20 (2), 98–106. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30407-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fejer, R., Kyvik, K. O., and Hartvigsen, J. (2006). The Prevalence of Neck Pain in the World Population: a Systematic Critical Review of the Literature. Eur. Spine J. 15, 834–848. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0864-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Finniss, D. (2013). “Historical Aspects of Placebo Analgesia,” in Placebo and Pain from Bench to Bedside. Editors L. Colloca, M. A. Flaten, and K. Meissner (London: Elsevier Academic Press), 1–8. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397928-5.00001-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerdesmeyer, L., Klueter, T., Rahlfs, V. W., Muderis, M. A., Saxena, A., Gollwitzer, H., et al. (2017). Randomized Placebo-Controlled Placebo Trial to Determine the Placebo Effect Size. Pain Physician 20 (5), 387–396.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Gould, D., Kelly, D., Goldstone, L., and Gammon, J. (2001). Examining the Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scales: Developing and Using Illustrated Patient Simulations to Collect the Data. J. Clin. Nurs. 10 (5), 697–706. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2001.00525.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Graham, N., Gross, A., Goldsmith, C. H., Klaber Moffett, J., Haines, T., Burnie, S. J., et al. (2008). Mechanical Traction for Neck Pain with or without Radiculopathy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (3), CD006408. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006408.pub2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harrington, A. (1997). The Placebo Effect. An Interdisciplinary Exploration. Cambridge: Boston University Press.

Google Scholar

Häuser, W., Bartram-Wunn, E., Bartram, C., Reinecke, H., and Tölle, T. (2011). Systematic Review: Placebo Response in Drug Trials of Fibromyalgia Syndrome and Painful Peripheral Diabetic Neuropathy-Magnitude and Patient-Related Predictors. Pain 152 (8), 1709–1717. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.01.050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hogg-Johnson, S., van der Velde, G., Carroll, L. J., Holm, L. W., Cassidy, J. D., Guzman, J., et al. (2008). The burden and Determinants of Neck Pain in the General Population: Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 (Suppl. l), S39–S51. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816454c8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoy, D., March, L., Woolf, A., Blyth, F., Brooks, P., Smith, E., et al. (2014). The Global burden of Neck Pain: Estimates from the Global burden of Disease 2010 Study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 73, 1309–1315. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204431

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jubb, J., and Bensing, J. M. (2013). The Sweetest Pill to Swallow: How Patient Neurobiology Can Be Harnessed to Maximise Placebo Effects. Neurosci. Biobehav Rev. 37, 2709–2720. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.09.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kupers, R., Maeyaert, J., Boly, M., Faymonville, M. E., and Laureys, S. (2007). Naloxone-insensitive Epidural Placebo Analgesia in a Chronic Pain Patient. Anesthesiology 106 (6), 1239–1242. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000265418.68005.8a

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peciña, M., and Zubieta, J. K. (2015). Molecular Mechanisms of Placebo Responses in Humans. Mol. Psychiatry 20 (4), 416–423. doi:10.1038/mp.2014.164

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Petersen, G. L., Finnerup, N. B., Nørskov, K. N., Grosen, K., Pilegaard, H. K., Benedetti, F., et al. (2012). Placebo Manipulations Reduce Hyperalgesia in Neuropathic Pain. Pain 153 (6), 1292–1300. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rief, W., Bingel, U., Schedlowski, M., and Enck, P. (2011). Mechanisms Involved in Placebo and Nocebo Responses and Implications for Drug Trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 90 (5), 722–726. doi:10.1038/clpt.2011.204

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Safiri, S., Kolahi, A. A., Hoy, D., Buchbinder, R., Mansournia, M. A., Bettampadi, D., et al. (2020). Global, Regional, and National burden of Neck Pain in the General Population, 1990-2017: Systematic Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. BMJ 368, m791. doi:10.1136/bmj.m791

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sauro, M. D., and Greenberg, R. P. (2005). Endogenous Opiates and the Placebo Effect: a Meta-Analytic Review. J. Psychosom Res. 58, 115–120. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.07.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shaibani, A., Frisaldi, E., and Benedetti, F. (2017). Placebo Response in Pain, Fatigue, and Performance: Possible Implications for Neuromuscular Disorders. Muscle Nerve 56 (3), 358–367. doi:10.1002/mus.25635

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Silberman, S. (2009). Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drug- Makers Are Desperate to Know Why. Wired Mag. 17, 1–8.

Google Scholar

Simpson, D. M., Rice, A. S., Emir, B., Landen, J., Semel, D., Chew, M. L., et al. (2014). A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial and Open-Label Extension Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain Associated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Neuropathy. Pain 155 (10), 1943–1954. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.05.027

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Skyt, I., Moslemi, K., Baastrup, C., Grosen, K., Svensson, P., Jensen, T. S., et al. (2018). Does Conditioned Pain Modulation Predict the Magnitude of Placebo Effects in Patients with Neuropathic Pain? Eur. J. Pain 22 (4), 784–792. doi:10.1002/ejp.1164

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steyerberg, E. W. (2008). Clinical Prediction Models. 1st ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Google Scholar

Tracey, I. (2010). Getting the Pain You Expect: Mechanisms of Placebo, Nocebo and Reappraisal Effects in Humans. Nat. Med. 16, 1277–1283. doi:10.1038/nm.2229

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Trochim, W. M., and Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

Google Scholar

Tuttle, A. H., Tohyama, S., Ramsay, T., Kimmelman, J., Schweinhardt, P., Bennett, G. J., et al. (2015). Increasing Placebo Responses over Time in U.S. Clinical Trials of Neuropathic Pain. Pain 156 (12), 2616–2626. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000333

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vase, L., Amanzio, M., and Price, D. D. (2015a). Nocebo vs. Placebo: the Challenges of Trial Design in Analgesia Research. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 97 (2), 143–150. doi:10.1002/cpt.31

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vase, L., Petersen, G. L., and Lund, K. (2014). Placebo Effects in Idiopathic and Neuropathic Pain Conditions. Handb Exp. Pharmacol. 225, 121–136. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44519-8_7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vase, L., Petersen, G. L., Riley, J. L., and Price, D. D. (2009). Factors Contributing to Large Analgesic Effects in Placebo Mechanism Studies Conducted between 2002 and 2007. Pain 145 (1-2), 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.04.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vase, L., Riley, J. L., and Price, D. D. (2002). A Comparison of Placebo Effects in Clinical Analgesic Trials versus Studies of Placebo Analgesia. Pain 99 (3), 443–452. doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00205-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vase, L., Robinson, M. E., Verne, G. N., and Price, D. D. (2005). Increased Placebo Analgesia over Time in Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) Patients Is Associated with Desire and Expectation but Not Endogenous Opioid Mechanisms. Pain 115 (3), 338–347. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2005.03.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vase, L., Vollert, J., Finnerup, N. B., Miao, X., Atkinson, G., Marshall, S., et al. (2015b). Predictors of the Placebo Analgesia Response in Randomized Controlled Trials of Chronic Pain: a Meta-Analysis of the Individual Data from Nine Industrially Sponsored Trials. Pain 156 (9), 1795–1802. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000217

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Walsh, B. T., Seidman, S. N., Sysko, R., and Gould, M. (2002). Placebo Response in Studies of Major Depression: Variable, Substantial, and Growing. JAMA 287 (14), 1840–1847. doi:10.1001/jama.287.14.1840

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yao, M., Tang, Z. Y., Cui, X. J., Sun, Y. L., Ye, X. L., Wang, P., et al. (2020). Shi-Style Cervical Mobilizations versus Massage for Cervical Vertigo: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 26 (1), 58–66. doi:10.1089/acm.2019.0113

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar