Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Does different information disclosure on placebo control affect blinding and trial outcomes? A case study of participant information leaflets of randomized placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture

Authors: Soyeon Cheon, Hi-Joon Park, Younbyoung Chae, Hyangsook Lee

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While full disclosure of information on placebo control in participant information leaflets (PILs) in a clinical trial is ethically required during informed consent, there have been concerning voices such complete disclosures may increase unnecessary nocebo responses, breach double-blind designs, and/or affect direction of trial outcomes. Taking an example of acupuncture studies, we aimed to examine what participants are told about placebo controls in randomized, placebo-controlled trials, and how it may affect blinding and trial outcomes.

Methods

Authors of published randomized, placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture were identified from PubMed search and invited to provide PILs for their trials. The collected PILs were subjected to content analysis and categorized based on degree of information disclosure on placebo. Blinding index (BI) as a chance-corrected measurement of blinding was calculated and its association with different information disclosure was examined. The impact of different information disclosure from PILs on primary outcomes was estimated using a random effects model.

Results

In 65 collected PILs, approximately 57% of trials fully informed the participants of placebo control, i.e. full disclosure, while the rest gave deceitful or no information on placebo, i.e. no disclosure. Placebo groups in the studies with no disclosure tended to make more opposite guesses on the type of received intervention than those with disclosure, which may reflect wishful thinking (BI −0.21 vs. −0.16; p = 0.38). In outcome analysis, studies with no disclosure significantly favored acupuncture than those with full disclosure (standardized mean difference − 0.43 vs. −0.12; p = 0.03), probably due to enhanced expectations.

Conclusions

How participants are told about placebos can be another potential factor that may influence participant blinding and study outcomes by possibly modulating patient expectation. As we have few empirical findings on this issue, future studies are needed to determine whether the present findings are relevant to other medical disciplines and at the same time a routine practice of fully disclosing placebo information in PILs calls for reevaluation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.CrossRef
2.
Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, Moher D, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med. 2007;4(2):e61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Linde K, Dincer F. How informed is consent in sham-controlled trials of acupuncture? J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10(2):379–85.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Miller FG, Colloca L. The placebo phenomenon and medical ethics: rethinking the relationship between informed consent and risk–benefit assessment. Theor Med Bioeth. 2011;32(4):229–43.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Tracey I. Getting the pain you expect: mechanisms of placebo, nocebo and reappraisal effects in humans. Nat Med. 2010;16(11):1277–83.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Carlino E, Torta DM, Piedimonte A, Frisaldi E, Vighetti S, Benedetti F. Role of explicit verbal information in conditioned analgesia. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(4):546–53.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Bishop FL, Adams AE, Kaptchuk TJ, Lewith GT. Informed consent and placebo effects: a content analysis of information leaflets to identify what clinical trial participants are told about placebos. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39661.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Moroz A, Freed B, Tiedemann L, Bang H, Howell M, Park JJ. Blinding measured: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2013;2013:708251.CrossRef
11.
Finfgeld-Connett D. Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qual Res. 2014;14(3):341–52.CrossRef
12.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Bang H, Ni L, Davis CE. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(2):143–56.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Park J, Bang H, Cañette I. Blinding in clinical trials, time to do it better. Complement Ther Med. 2008;16(3):121–3.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19(22):3127–31.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Wang LP, Zhang XZ, Guo J, Liu HL, Zhang Y, Liu CZ, et al. Efficacy of acupuncture for acute migraine attack: a multicenter single blinded, randomized controlled trial. Pain Med. 2012;13(5):623–30.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wang LP, Zhang XZ, Guo J, Liu HL, Zhang Y, Liu CZ, et al. Efficacy of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis: a single-blinded, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2011;152(8):1864–71.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kaptchuk TJ, Kelley JM, Conboy LA, Davis RB, Kerr CE, Jacobson EE, et al. Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. BMJ. 2008;336(7651):999–1003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Lembo AJ, Conboy L, Kelley JM, Schnyer RS, McManus CA, Quilty MT, et al. A treatment trial of acupuncture in IBS patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(6):1489–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Lee H, Bang H, Kim Y, Park J, Lee S, Lee H, et al. Non-penetrating sham needle, is it an adequate sham control in acupuncture research? Complement Ther Med. 2011;19(Suppl 1):S41–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(2):159–66.CrossRefPubMed
24.
American Medical Association. Code of medical ethics, 2014–2015: of the American Medical Association. Annotated ed. United States: American Medical Association Press; 2014.
25.
Emanuel EJ, Miller FG. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials — a middle ground. New Engl J Med. 2001;345(12):915–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Wells RE, Kaptchuk TJ. To tell the truth, the whole truth, may do patients harm: the problem of the nocebo effect for informed consent. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(3):22–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Tan K, Petrie KJ, Faasse K, Bolland MJ, Grey A. Unhelpful information about adverse drug reactions. BMJ. 2014;349:g5019.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(9):e13–4.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Garner M, Ning Z, Francis J. A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets. Health Expect. 2012;15(3):283–94.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Gillies K, Huang W, Skea Z, Brehaut J, Cotton S. Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation. Trials. 2014;15:62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Wilson CB. An updated declaration of Helsinki will provide more protection. Nat Med. 2013;19(6):664.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Dhai A. The research ethics evolution: from Nuremberg to Helsinki. S Afr Med J. 2014;104(3):178–80.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Djavadkhani Y, Marshall NS, D'Rozario AL, Crawford MR, Yee BJ, Grunstein RR, et al. Ethics, consent and blinding: lessons from a placebo/sham controlled CPAP crossover trial. Thorax. 2015;70(3):265–9.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Park HL, Lee HS, Shin BC, Liu JP, Shang Q, Yamashita H, et al. Traditional medicine in China, Korea, and Japan: a brief introduction and comparison. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2012;2012:429103.
36.
Volinn E, Yang B, He J, Sheng X, Ying J, Zuo Y. Do outcomes of acupuncture for back pain differ according to varying sociocultural contexts? The view from China. J Altern Complement Med. 2013;19(5):435–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Dilli CR, Childs R, Berk J, Christian MK, Nguyen N, Brown RP, et al. Does prior acupuncture exposure affect perception of blinded real or sham acupuncture. Acupunct Med. 2014;32(2):155–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
White P, Lewith G, Hopwood V, Prescott P. The placebo needle, is it a valid and convincing placebo for use in acupuncture trials? A randomised, single-blind, cross-over pilot trial. Pain. 2003;106(3):401–9.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD003974.
40.
Kam-Hansen S, Jakubowski M, Kelley JM, Kirsch I, Hoaglin DC, Kaptchuk TJ, et al. Altered placebo and drug labeling changes the outcome of episodic migraine attacks. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(218):218ra5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Linde K, Witt CM, Streng A, Weidenhammer W, Wagenpfeil S, Brinkhaus B, et al. The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. Pain. 2007;128(3):264–71.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Witt CM, Martins F, Willich SN, Schützler L. Can I help you? Physicians' expectations as predictor for treatment outcome. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(10):1455–66.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Miller FG, Emanuel EJ, Rosenstein DL, Straus SE. Ethical issues concerning research in complementary and alternative medicine. JAMA. 2004;291(5):599–604.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Menoni V, Lucas N, Leforestier JF, Dimet J, Doz F, Chatellier G, et al. The readability of information and consent forms in clinical research in France. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10576.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Reinert C, Kremmler L, Burock S, Bogdahn U, Wick W, Gleiter CH, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trials. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(1):150–8.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Srnka KJ, Koeszegi ST. From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Business Rev. 2007;59(1):29–57.CrossRef
48.
Myers MG, Cairns JA, Singer J. The consent form as a possible cause of side effects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;42(3):250–3.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Pildal J, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(4):847–57.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does different information disclosure on placebo control affect blinding and trial outcomes? A case study of participant information leaflets of randomized placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture
Authors
Soyeon Cheon
Hi-Joon Park
Younbyoung Chae
Hyangsook Lee
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0474-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Engaging military couples in marital research: does requesting referrals from service members to recruit their spouses introduce sample bias?

Research article

Simulation-based power calculations for planning a two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis

Research article

Reference effect measures for quantifying, comparing and visualizing variation from random and fixed effects in non-normal multilevel models, with applications to site variation in medical procedure use and outcomes

Research article

Synthesising conceptual frameworks for patient and public involvement in research – a critical appraisal of a meta-narrative review

Correction

Correction to: multiple imputation for patient reported outcome measures in randomised controlled trials: advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, subscale or composite score level

Research article

Measuring colorectal cancer incidence: the performance of an algorithm using administrative health data