Interpreting the magnitude of the placebo effect: mountain or Molehill?
- PMID: 17279525
- DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20352
Interpreting the magnitude of the placebo effect: mountain or Molehill?
Abstract
The ambiguity involved in interpreting numbers and words is central to Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche's (this issue) claim of "powerful spin" in the Wampold, Minami, Tierney, Baskin, and Bhati (2005) re-analysis of their meta-analytic findings on the placebo effect in medicine. Meta-analytic results reported by the two sets of authors are nearly identical, yet their conclusions differ dramatically. In our comment, we discuss the findings of the respective authors and consider options for representing and interpreting the magnitude of meta-analytic effect size estimates. We conclude that although the meta-analyses described indicate that placebo effects do exist and cannot be dismissed as unimportant, given contextual information, it is consistent with existing research to describe the obtained mean effect size for placebos in medicine as small in magnitude.
Comment in
-
The placebo effect: "relatively large" and "robust" enough to survive another assault.J Clin Psychol. 2007 Apr;63(4):401-3; discussion 405-8. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20350. J Clin Psychol. 2007. PMID: 17279522
Comment on
-
Powerful spin in the conclusion of Wampold et al.'s re-analysis of placebo versus no-treatment trials despite similar results as in original review.J Clin Psychol. 2007 Apr;63(4):373-7. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20357. J Clin Psychol. 2007. PMID: 17279532
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
