Dataset Information

Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Placebos are widely used in clinical practice in spite of ethical restrictions. Whether such use is justified depends in part on the relative benefit of placebos compared to 'active' treatments. A direct test for differences between placebo and 'active' treatment effects has not been conducted.

Objectives

We aimed to test for differences between treatment and placebo effects within similar trial populations.

Data sources

A Cochrane Review compared placebos with no treatment in three-armed trials (no treatment, placebo, and treatment). We added an analysis of treatment and placebo differences within the same trials. SYNTHESIS METHODS: For continuous outcomes we compared mean differences between placebo and no treatment with mean differences between treatment and placebo. For binary outcomes we compared the risk ratio for treatment benefit (versus placebo) with the risk ratio for placebo benefit (versus no treatment). We conducted several preplanned subgroup analyses: objective versus subjective outcomes, conditions tested in three or more trials, and trials with varying degrees of bias.

Results

In trials with continuous outcomes (n?=?115) we found no difference between treatment and placebo effects (MD?=?-0.29, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.05, P?=?0.10). In trials with binary outcomes (n?=?37) treatments were significantly more effective than placebos (RRR?=?0.72, 95%CI?=?0.61 to 0.86, P?=?0.0003). Treatment and placebo effects were not different in 22 out of 28 predefined subgroup analyses. Of the six subgroups with differences treatments were more effective than placebos in five. However when all criteria for reducing bias were ruled out (continuous outcomes) placebos were more effective than treatments (MD?=?1.59, 95% CI?=?0.40 to 2.77, P?=?0.009).

Conclusions and implications

Placebos and treatments often have similar effect sizes. Placebos with comparatively powerful effects can benefit patients either alone or as part of a therapeutic regime, and trials involving such placebos must be adequately blinded.

SUBMITTER: Howick J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3655171 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Howick Jeremy J Friedemann Claire C Tsakok Maria M Watson Robert R Tsakok Teresa T Thomas Jennifer J Perera Rafael R Fleming Susannah S Heneghan Carl C

PloS one 20130515 5

<h4>Background</h4>Placebos are widely used in clinical practice in spite of ethical restrictions. Whether such use is justified depends in part on the relative benefit of placebos compared to 'active' treatments. A direct test for differences between placebo and 'active' treatment effects has not been conducted.<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to test for differences between treatment and placebo effects within similar trial populations.<h4>Data sources</h4>A Cochrane Review compared placebos with n ...[more]

PMID: 23690944

Similar Datasets

Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review is to appraise the evidence for the use of anti-VEGF drugs and steroids in diabetic macular oedema (DMO) as assessed by change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness and adverse eventsData sourceMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings and the Cochrane Library (inception to July 2012). Certain conference abstracts and drug regulatory web sites were also searched.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsRandomised controlled trials were used to assess clinical effectiveness and observational trials were used for safety. Trials which assessed triamcinolone, dexamethasone, fluocinolone, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, pegaptanib or aflibercept in patients with DMO were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsRisk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results are narratively described and, where appropriate, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsAnti-VEGF drugs are effective compared to both laser and placebo and seem to be more effective than steroids in improving BCVA. They have been shown to be safe in the short term but require frequent injections. Studies assessing steroids (triamcinolone, dexamethasone and fluocinolone) have reported mixed results when compared with laser or placebo. Steroids have been associated with increased incidence of cataracts and intraocular pressure rise but require fewer injections, especially when steroid implants are used.LimitationsThe quality of included studies varied considerably. Five of 14 meta-analyses had moderate or high statistical heterogeneity.Conclusions and implications of key findingsThe anti-VEGFs ranibizumab and bevacizumab have consistently shown good clinical effectiveness without major unwanted side effects. Steroid results have been mixed and are usually associated with cataract formation and intraocular pressure increase. Despite the current wider spectrum of treatments for DMO, only a small proportion of patients recover good vision (?20/40), and thus the search for new therapies needs to continue.

Dataset Information

Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Objectives

Data sources

Results

Conclusions and implications

Publications

Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets