Placebo analgesia in physical and psychological interventions: Systematic review and meta-analysis of three-armed trials.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of placebo effects from physical and psychological 'sham' is unknown but could impact efficacy trials and treatment understanding. To quantify placebo effects, this systematic review of three-armed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical and psychological interventions for pain compared outcomes in 'sham' control intervention and non-exposure arms. METHODS: RCTs with treatment, 'sham' control intervention, and non-exposure groups were included, enrolling adults with any pain. A protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42023413324), and twelve databases searched from 2008 to July 2023. Trial methods and blinding were analysed descriptively and risk of bias assessed. Meta-analysis of pain measures at short-, medium- and long-term was performed with random-effects models of standardised mean differences (SMD).Studies were sub-grouped according to control intervention type. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included. The average short-term placebo effect was small (0.21 SMD, 0.1-0.33 95% CI, p = 0.0002, 1440 participants). It showed no heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.1, I2 = 11%, p = 0.3), preventing meta-regression analyses of effect modifiers. However, sub-group analyses revealed larger placebo effects in manual control interventions compared to disabled devices and miscellaneous control interventions. Overall, placebo analgesia accounted for 39% of treatments' short-term effectiveness. No placebo effects were found at medium-term (7 RCTs, 381 participants) or long-term follow-up (3 RCTs, 173 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The observed placebo analgesia has mechanistic and methodological implications, though its clinical importance may be limited. Control intervention design affects placebo effects, highlighting the importance of considering methodology in RCT interpretation. Review limitations include a small number of long-term studies and sample heterogeneity. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review directly quantifies placebo effects from physical and psychological 'sham' control interventions and compares them to treatments' overall effectiveness. By doing so, the review enhances our understanding of placebo effects, their relative contribution in clinical trials, and their susceptibly to trial design. It poses further questions regarding the influence of blinding, participant expectations, and features of the therapeutic context. Overall, the insights provided by this review carry methodological significance and are important for the interpretation and synthesis of efficacy trials in this field.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article I): a systematic review and description of methods.

ABSTRACT: Blinding is challenging in randomised controlled trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies for pain, mainly because of their complex and participatory nature. To develop standards for the design, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials, a systematic overview of currently used sham interventions and other blinding methods was required. Twelve databases were searched for placebo or sham-controlled randomised clinical trials of physical, psychological, and self-management treatments in a clinical pain population. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and trial features, description of control methods, and their similarity to the active intervention under investigation were extracted (protocol registration ID: CRD42020206590). The review included 198 unique control interventions, published between 2008 and December 2021. Most trials studied people with chronic pain, and more than half were manual therapy trials. The described control interventions ranged from clearly modelled based on the active treatment to largely dissimilar control interventions. Similarity between control and active interventions was more frequent for certain aspects (eg, duration and frequency of treatments) than others (eg, physical treatment procedures and patient sensory experiences). We also provide an overview of additional, potentially useful methods to enhance blinding, as well as the reporting of processes involved in developing control interventions. A comprehensive picture of prevalent blinding methods is provided, including a detailed assessment of the resemblance between active and control interventions. These findings can inform future developments of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials and best-practice recommendations.

Blinding and sham control methods in trials of physical, psychological, and self-management interventions for pain (article II): a meta-analysis relating methods to trial results.

ABSTRACT: Sham interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of physical, psychological, and self-management (PPS) therapies for pain are highly variable in design and believed to contribute to poor internal validity. However, it has not been formally tested whether the extent to which sham controls resemble the treatment under investigation consistently affects trial outcomes, such as effect sizes, differential attrition, participant expectancy, and blinding effectiveness. Placebo- or sham-controlled RCTs of PPS interventions of clinical pain populations were searched in 12 databases. The similarity of control interventions to the experimental treatment was rated across 25 features. Meta-regression analyses assessed putative links between employed control interventions, observed effect sizes in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding success. The sample included 198 unique control interventions, dominated by manual therapy and chronic musculoskeletal pain research. Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate benefits of active treatments over control interventions, across subgroups of manual therapies, exercise, and rehabilitation, and psychological intervention trials. Multiple meta-regression modelling demonstrated that similarity between sham control and tested interventions predicted variability in pain-related outcomes, attrition, and blinding effectiveness. Influential variables were differences relating to the extent of intervention exposure, participant experience, and treatment environments. The results support the supposed link between blinding methods and effect sizes, based on a large and systematically sourced overview of methods. However, challenges to effective blinding are complex and often difficult to discern from trial reports. Nonetheless, these insights have the potential to change trial design, conduct, and reporting and will inform guideline development.

Pragmatic trials of pain therapies: a systematic review of methods.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings-the purpose of pragmatic trials.