-
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Feb 2024There is evidence that placebo and nocebo effects are significant for many conditions, but their impact on weight loss has not yet been well described. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There is evidence that placebo and nocebo effects are significant for many conditions, but their impact on weight loss has not yet been well described.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review of studies indexed on PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, TripDatabase, and Embase was carried out. Studies (1) with at least two study groups - placebo and a corresponding control group; (2) published in English; and (3) focusing on adults participating in weight loss programs or on placebo/nocebo effects in weight loss were included. Synthesis and meta-analysis of the results of studies with comparable research plans were performed.
RESULTS
Some preliminary trends suggesting placebo and nocebo effects in weight loss were found. Placebo effects manifested in trends towards a slightly greater reduction of Body Mass Index (BMI) and body fat ratio in the placebo compared with the control groups. On the other hand, in one study, it was found that the expectancy effects of taking oral weight-loss agents might be disadvantageous (i.e., because they elicit a nocebo effect on weight loss).
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest a possibility that the nocebo effect may occur when an intervention has a medical context. In contrast, the placebo effect can be observed in cases where the intervention is of a different nature. However, considering the low number of studies analyzing the use of placebos in weight loss, new primary research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nocebo Effect; Dietary Supplements; Research Design; Diet; Exercise
PubMed: 37950372
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13660 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2022The nature and magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses to ADHD medications and the extent to which response to active medications and placebo are inter-correlated is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The nature and magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses to ADHD medications and the extent to which response to active medications and placebo are inter-correlated is unclear. To assess the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses to ADHD and their association with active treatment response. We searched literature until June 26, 2019, for published/unpublished double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of ADHD medication. Authors were contacted for additional data. We assessed placebo effects on efficacy and nocebo effects on tolerability using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed the association of study design and patient features with placebo/nocebo response. We analysed 128 RCTs (10,578 children/adolescents and 9175 adults) and found significant and heterogenous placebo effects for all efficacy outcomes, with no publication bias. The placebo effect was greatest for clinician compared with other raters. We found nocebo effects on tolerability outcomes. Efficacy outcomes from most raters showed significant positive correlations between the baseline to endpoint placebo effects and the baseline to endpoint drug effects. Placebo and nocebo effects did not differ among drugs. Baseline severity and type of rating scale influenced the findings. Shared non-specific factors influence response to both placebo and active medication. Although ADHD medications are superior to placebo, and placebo treatment in clinical practice is not feasible, clinicians should attempt to incorporate factors associated with placebo effects into clinical care. Future studies should explore how such effects influence response to medication treatment. Upon publication, data will be available in Mendeley Data: PROSPERO (CRD42019130292).
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Nocebo Effect; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33972692
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01134-w -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jul 2023To quantify placebo effects and responses in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on neck pain and explore how they would influence the treatment of neck pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To quantify placebo effects and responses in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on neck pain and explore how they would influence the treatment of neck pain.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the inception of August 15, 2021, to identify relevant RCTs.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
The abstracts and full texts of potential studies were independently screened, and data extraction was also independently performed by 2 researchers. Scales of the score measuring neck pain and the scores both at baseline and the endpoint were extracted.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 60 RCTs were included. The mean improvement in the pain score after placebo treatment was 15.65 (mean difference [MD]=-15.65, 95% confidence interval; CI [-19.19, -12.12]; P<.05), which we defined as the placebo response. In the active groups, it was 25.91 (MD=-25.91, 95% CI [-29.15, -22.68]; P<.05), and in the no-treatment groups, it was 5.80 (MD=-5.80, 95% CI [13.28, 1.69]; P=.13). Using the 3 MDs from the 3 groups, the placebo effect was calculated to account for 38.0% of the pain score improvement in the active group.
CONCLUSIONS
The pain scores of patients with neck pain were reduced after treatment with placebos, but the magnitude of pain score reduction was not clinically significant enough. The 38.0% amount of pain score reduction in patients treated with active interventions was caused by placebo. Interventions with considerable clinically significance for neck pain were still required.
Topics: Humans; Neck Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36417969
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.10.013 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2020Placebo and nocebo effects can influence somatic symptoms such as pain. For itch and other dermatological symptoms these effects have been far less investigated. This... (Review)
Review
Placebo and nocebo effects can influence somatic symptoms such as pain. For itch and other dermatological symptoms these effects have been far less investigated. This review systematically integrates evidence from both animal (mainly rodents) and human trials on placebo and nocebo effects in itch, itch-related symptoms and conditions of the skin and mucous membranes, and related immune outcomes (e.g., histamine). Thirty-one animal studies, and fifty-five human studies (k = 21 healthy participants, k = 34 patients) were included. Overall, studies consistently show that placebo and nocebo effects can be induced by various methods (e.g., suggestions, conditioning and social cues), despite high heterogeneity across studies. Effects of suggestions were found consistently across subjective and behavioral parameters (e.g., itch and scratching in humans), whereas conditioning was likely to impact physiological parameters under certain conditions (e.g., conditioning of histamine levels in stressed rodents). Brain areas responsible for itch processing were associated with nocebo effects. Future research may investigate how variations in methods impact placebo and nocebo effects, and whether all symptoms and conditions can be influenced equally.
Topics: Animals; Cues; Humans; Nocebo Effect; Pain; Placebo Effect; Pruritus; Suggestion
PubMed: 32240668
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.025 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Dec 2014It is important to determine the magnitude and identify modifiers of the rate of response to placebo in clinical trials of fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD), to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
It is important to determine the magnitude and identify modifiers of the rate of response to placebo in clinical trials of fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD), to understand disease progression, and to calculate sample size. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of rates of response to placebo in trials of patients with fistulizing CD.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE CLASSIC, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacologic agents with placebo in adults with fistulizing CD. We identified studies that reported complete fistula closure, partial closure, or response. Data were extracted as intention-to-treat analyses and pooled by using a random-effects model. Proportions of patients who received placebo and had complete or partial fistula(e) closure were calculated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The effects of trial characteristics on the magnitude of response to placebo were examined.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were eligible for our analysis; these included 579 patients assigned to placebo groups. The pooled rate of response to placebo, among all RCTs, for complete fistula closure was 15.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-20.9%), with significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 62.5%, P = .001). The pooled rate of response to placebo for partial fistula closure or response in 9 trials, comprising 423 patients, was 18.3% (95% CI, 14.8%-22.1%). Rates of response to placebo were significantly lower in trials with shorter durations of therapy and shorter intervals to assessment of fistula closure. Neither exposure to the pharmacologic agent during the induction phase of the same (or related) RCT nor concomitant medications had any effect.
CONCLUSIONS
In a meta-analysis of rate of response to placebo in patients with fistulizing CD, we found that fistulae closed in almost 1/6 patients given placebo in RCTs of pharmacologic agents. Future research should identify characteristics of patients that predict response to placebo.
Topics: Crohn Disease; Fistula; Humans; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25218669
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.08.038 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2023Migraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Migraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing the differential responses in the treatment and placebo arms. Although placebo response in preventive migraine trials has been studied, there is limited research examining temporal trends. This study evaluates the trend of placebo response over thirty years in migraine prevention trials and investigates the association of potential confounders, such as patient, treatment, and study characteristics on placebo response using meta-analysis with regression.
METHODS
We conducted literature searches from January 1990 to August 2021 in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). Studies were selected according to PICOS criteria and included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatments in adult patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, with or without aura. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021271732). Migraine efficacy outcomes included were either continuous (e.g., monthly migraine days) or dichotomous (e.g., ≥ 50% responder rate (yes/no)). We assessed the correlation of the change in outcome from baseline in the placebo arm, with the year of publication. The relationship between placebo response and year of publication was also assessed after accounting to confounders.
RESULTS
A total of 907 studies were identified, and 83 were found eligible. For the continuous outcomes, the change from baseline in mean placebo response showed an increase over the years (rho = 0.32, p = 0.006). The multivariable regression analysis also showed an overall increase in placebo response over the years. The correlation analysis of dichotomous responses showed no significant linear trend between publication year and mean placebo response (rho = 0.08, p = 0.596). Placebo response also varied by route of administration.
CONCLUSION
Placebo response increased over the past 30 years in migraine preventive trials. This phenomenon should be considered when designing clinical trials and conducting meta-analyses.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Double-Blind Method; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37193973
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01587-0 -
European Urology Focus Jan 2022The role of a placebo response in the management of overactive bladder (OAB) remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
The role of a placebo response in the management of overactive bladder (OAB) remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review is to methodically study the placebo response extracted from the control arms of randomized clinical trials assessing therapy in patients with OAB.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until September 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating oral drug therapy for OAB were included. The articles were critically appraised by two reviewers. The primary outcomes were the placebo response in the main patient-reported urinary outcomes together with assessing the impact of patient demographic factors on the placebo response.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The initial search resulted in 1982 records after reviewing the titles and abstracts, and reference lists of other systematic reviews; 57 studies with an overall estimated 12 901 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies were of overall high/acceptable quality. The standardized mean difference was -0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.51 to -0.40; p<0.001) for daily micturition episodes, -0.33 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.24; p<0.001) for daily nocturia episodes, -0.46 (95% CI -0.55 to -0.37; p<0.001) for urgency urinary incontinence episodes, -0.50 (95% CI -0.61 to -0.39; p<0.001) for daily urgency episodes, -0.51 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.43; p<0.001) for daily incontinence episodes, and 0.25 (95% CI 0.211-0.290; p<0.001) for volume voided per micturition. The meta-regression of age-related impact of the placebo response on nocturia showed a slope of -0.02 (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Placebo has a statistically significant effect on improving symptoms and signs associated with OAB; this effect is age dependent. However, there is no consensus on what change of OAB symptoms and signs is clinically meaningful for the affected patient. Taken together, the placebo response seems to be non-negligible in OAB, supporting the need for placebo control in RCTs.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Placebo is an inert treatment method often used in clinical research for comparison with active treatment. However, studies show that placebo has an effect of its own. A placebo response means the total improvement resulting from receiving a placebo. In our study, placebo had a significant role in improving the symptoms of overactive bladder.
Topics: Humans; Nocturia; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Bladder, Overactive
PubMed: 33674256
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.02.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve pregnancy outcome. This Cochrane Review is an updated review, first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2007 and 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined as systolic blood pressure 140 to 169 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 to 109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we included 63 trials (data from 58 trials, 5909 women), with moderate to high risk of bias overall.We carried out GRADE assessments for the main 'antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug' comparison only. Evidence was graded from very low to moderate certainty, with downgrading mainly due to design limitations and imprecision.For many outcomes, trials contributing data evaluated different hypertensive drugs; while we did not downgrade for this indirectness, results should be interpreted with caution.Antihypertensive drug versus placebo/no antihypertensive drug (31 trials, 3485 women)Primary outcomes: moderate-certainty evidence suggests that use of antihypertensive drug(s) probably halves the risk of developing severe hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.60; 20 trials, 2558 women), but may have little or no effect on the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; 23 trials, 2851 women; low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that antihypertensive drug(s) probably have little or no effect in the risk of total reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) (aRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; 29 trials, 3365 women), small-for-gestational-age babies (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18; 21 trials, 2686 babies) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (aRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; 15 trials, 2141 women).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
we are uncertain of the effect of antihypertensive drug(s) on the risk of maternal death, severe pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, orimpaired long-term growth and development of the baby in infancy and childhood, because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There may be little or no effect on the risk of changed/stopped drugs due to maternal side-effects, or admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery (low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in the risk of elective delivery (moderate-certainty evidence).Antihypertensive drug versus another antihypertensive drug (29 trials, 2774 women)Primary outcomes: beta blockers and calcium channel blockers together in the meta-analysis appear to be more effective than methyldopa in avoiding an episode of severe hypertension (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; 11 trials, 638 women). There was also an increase in this risk when other antihypertensive drugs were compared with calcium channel blockers (RR 1.86; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.15; 5 trials, 223 women), but no evidence of a difference when methyldopa and calcium channel blockers together were compared with beta blockers (RR1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.48; 10 trials, 692 women). No evidence of a difference in the risk of proteinuria/pre-eclampsia was found when alternative drugs were compared with methyldopa (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; 11 trials, 997 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR: 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.19; 5 trials, 375 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.67; 12 trials, 1107 women).For the babies, we found no evidence of a difference in the risk oftotal reported fetal or neonatal death (including miscarriage) when comparing other antihypertensive drugs with methyldopa (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.14; 22 trials, 1791 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57; nine trials, 700 babies), or with beta blockers (aRR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.88; 19 trials, 1652 babies); nor in the risk for small-for-gestational age in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.20; seven trials, 597 babies), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.73; four trials, 200 babies), or with beta blockers (average RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.60; 7 trials, 680 babies). No evidence of an overall difference among groups in the risk of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) was found in the comparison with methyldopa (aRR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; 11 trials, 835 women), with calcium channel blockers (aRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.23; six trials, 330 women), or with beta blockers (aRR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.66; 9 trials, 806 women).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
There were no cases of maternal death andeclampsia. There is no evidence of a difference in the risk of severe pre-eclampsia, changed/stopped drug due to maternal side-effects, elective delivery, admission to neonatal or intensive care nursery when other antihypertensive drugs are compared with methyldopa, calcium channel blockers or beta blockers. Impaired long-term growth and development in infancy and childhood was not reported for these comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy reduces the risk of severe hypertension. The effect on other clinically important outcomes remains unclear. If antihypertensive drugs are used, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers appear to be more effective than the alternatives for preventing severe hypertension. High-quality large sample-sized randomised controlled trials are required in order to provide reliable estimates of the benefits and adverse effects of antihypertensive treatment for mild to moderate hypertension for both mother and baby, as well as costs to the health services, women and their families.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Female; Fetal Death; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Maternal Death; Placebo Effect; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Proteinuria; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30277556
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002252.pub4 -
JAMA Psychiatry May 2024Placebo is the only substance systematically evaluated across common psychiatric diagnoses, but comprehensive cross-diagnostic comparisons are lacking.
IMPORTANCE
Placebo is the only substance systematically evaluated across common psychiatric diagnoses, but comprehensive cross-diagnostic comparisons are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To compare changes in placebo groups in recent high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) across a broad spectrum of psychiatric disorders in adult patients.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched in March 2022 for the latest systematic reviews meeting predetermined high-quality criteria for 9 major psychiatric diagnoses.
STUDY SELECTION
Using these reviews, the top 10 highest-quality (ie, lowest risk of bias, according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool) and most recent placebo-controlled RCTs per diagnosis (totaling 90 RCTs) were selected, adhering to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Cochrane Handbook, 2 authors independently carried out the study search, selection, and data extraction. Cross-diagnosis comparisons were based on standardized pre-post effect sizes (mean change divided by its SD) for each placebo group. This study is reported following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE
The primary outcome, pooled pre-post placebo effect sizes (dav) with 95% CIs per diagnosis, was determined using random-effects meta-analyses. A Q test assessed statistical significance of differences across diagnoses. Heterogeneity and small-study effects were evaluated as appropriate.
RESULTS
A total of 90 RCTs with 9985 placebo-treated participants were included. Symptom severity improved with placebo in all diagnoses. Pooled pre-post placebo effect sizes differed across diagnoses (Q = 88.5; df = 8; P < .001), with major depressive disorder (dav = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.24-1.56) and generalized anxiety disorder (dav = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41) exhibiting the largest dav. Panic disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, social phobia, and mania showed dav between 0.68 and 0.92, followed by OCD (dav = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.78) and schizophrenia (dav = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.76).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that symptom improvement with placebo treatment was substantial in all conditions but varied across the 9 included diagnoses. These findings may help in assessing the necessity and ethical justification of placebo controls, in evaluating treatment effects in uncontrolled studies, and in guiding patients in treatment decisions. These findings likely encompass the true placebo effect, natural disease course, and nonspecific effects.
PubMed: 38809560
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0994 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Nov 2016Previous studies have shown that placebo response rates in antidepressant trials have been increasing since the 1970s. However, these studies have been based on outdated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have shown that placebo response rates in antidepressant trials have been increasing since the 1970s. However, these studies have been based on outdated or limited datasets and have used inappropriate statistical methods. We did a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials of antidepressants to examine associations between placebo-response rates and study and patient characteristics.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we searched for published and unpublished double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials of first-generation and second-generation antidepressants for acute treatment of major depression in adults (update: Jan 8, 2016). The log-transformed proportions of placebo response, defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity score from baseline, were meta-analytically synthesised for each year. We then looked for a structural break point in the secular changes in these characteristics through the years and examined the influence of the study year and other trial and patient characteristics on the response rates through meta-regression.
FINDINGS
We identified 252 placebo-controlled trials (26 324 patients on placebo) done between 1978 and 2015. There was a structural break in 1991, and since then, the average placebo response rates in antidepressant trials have remained constant in the range between 35% and 40% (relative risk [RR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·97-1·03, p=0·99, for every 5-year increase). The length of the study and the number of study centres were significant factors (RR 1·03, 95% CI 1·01-1·05 for 1 more week in trial length; 1·32, 1·11-1·57 for multicentre vs single-centre trials).
INTERPRETATION
Contrary to the widely held belief, the average placebo response rates in antidepressant trials have been stable for more than 25 years. This new evidence should have an effect on the interpretation of the scientific literature and the future of psychopharmacology, both from a clinical and methodological point of view.
FUNDING
Japan Society for Promotion of Science, Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Depressive Disorder, Major; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27726982
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30307-8