Moderators of nocebo effects in controlled experiments: A multi-level meta-analysis

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106042
Madeline V. Stein , Monika Heller , Natasha Hughes , Danielle Marr , Benjamin Brake , Sarah Chapman , G. James Rubin , Devin B. Terhune
{"title":"Moderators of nocebo effects in controlled experiments: A multi-level meta-analysis","authors":"Madeline V. Stein ,&nbsp;Monika Heller ,&nbsp;Natasha Hughes ,&nbsp;Danielle Marr ,&nbsp;Benjamin Brake ,&nbsp;Sarah Chapman ,&nbsp;G. James Rubin ,&nbsp;Devin B. Terhune","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Nocebo effects are a heterogenous phenomenon in which contextual cues trigger or exacerbate symptoms independently of active interventions. Suggestion, conditioning, and social observation are widely recognised as hallmark methods for inducing nocebo effects, but the extent to which nocebo effects are differentially influenced by suggestion type (e.g., direct or indirect suggestion) and mode of administration (e.g., verbal, textual, visual, etc.) across symptom domains remains unknown. We conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number CRD42023402097) to quantitatively synthesize available research on the factors that moderate effects in controlled nocebo experiments. Of 8469 search results, 105 experiments comprising 5017 participants and 391 effect sizes were analyzed. A multi-level meta-analysis revealed an overall moderate effect size for nocebo effects, <em>g</em>=0.50, [0.39, 0.62]. The magnitude of symptom expectancy effects was a significant moderator of nocebo effects. Verbal suggestion and social observation yielded moderate and comparable nocebo effects whereas technological devices, sham stimulation, and conditioning were independently associated with the induction of large nocebo effects. Greater specificity in the reporting of nocebo induction methods is required to elucidate the efficacy of different types of suggestions in inducing nocebo effects.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 106042"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425000429","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nocebo effects are a heterogenous phenomenon in which contextual cues trigger or exacerbate symptoms independently of active interventions. Suggestion, conditioning, and social observation are widely recognised as hallmark methods for inducing nocebo effects, but the extent to which nocebo effects are differentially influenced by suggestion type (e.g., direct or indirect suggestion) and mode of administration (e.g., verbal, textual, visual, etc.) across symptom domains remains unknown. We conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number CRD42023402097) to quantitatively synthesize available research on the factors that moderate effects in controlled nocebo experiments. Of 8469 search results, 105 experiments comprising 5017 participants and 391 effect sizes were analyzed. A multi-level meta-analysis revealed an overall moderate effect size for nocebo effects, g=0.50, [0.39, 0.62]. The magnitude of symptom expectancy effects was a significant moderator of nocebo effects. Verbal suggestion and social observation yielded moderate and comparable nocebo effects whereas technological devices, sham stimulation, and conditioning were independently associated with the induction of large nocebo effects. Greater specificity in the reporting of nocebo induction methods is required to elucidate the efficacy of different types of suggestions in inducing nocebo effects.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对照实验中反安慰剂效应的调节因子:一项多层次元分析。
反安慰剂效应是一种异质现象,情境线索触发或加剧症状,独立于积极干预。建议、条件反射和社会观察被广泛认为是诱发反安慰剂效应的标志性方法,但反安慰剂效应在多大程度上受到建议类型(如直接或间接建议)和给药模式(如口头、文字、视觉等)在症状领域的不同影响仍不清楚。我们进行了一项预注册荟萃分析(PROSPERO注册号CRD42023402097),以定量综合有关对照反安慰剂实验中调节效应因素的现有研究。在8,469个搜索结果中,分析了105个实验,包括5,017名参与者和391个效应值。一项多层次荟萃分析显示,反安慰剂效应的总体效应大小为中等,g=0.50,[0.39, 0.62]。症状期望效应的大小是反安慰剂效应的显著调节因子。言语暗示和社会观察产生了适度的反安慰剂效应,而技术设备、假刺激和条件反射与诱导大的反安慰剂效应独立相关。反安慰剂诱导方法的报告需要更具体地阐明不同类型的建议在诱导反安慰剂效应方面的功效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
466
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society publishes original and significant review articles that explore the intersection between neuroscience and the study of psychological processes and behavior. The journal also welcomes articles that primarily focus on psychological processes and behavior, as long as they have relevance to one or more areas of neuroscience.
期刊最新文献
On human synchrony: a systematic review of the origins of physiological and neural synchrony in parent-infant dyads (0-12 months). Energy Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (EDHD): A Neurobiological Energy Dysregulation Model for ADHD. Serotonergic Psychedelics as Epigenetic Modulators: A Paradigm Shift in Alzheimer's Disease Therapeutics. Rethinking Anorexia Nervosa Through the Lens of Control, Compulsion and Reward: Neurobiological Insights Into Addiction-Like Features via the Dopaminergic, Endocannabinoid, and Orexinergic Systems - A Narrative Review. Seeing without eyes: Relation between visual mental imagery and visual hallucinations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1