More on the Placebo ‘Effects’

Kaptchuk offers some ideas about what the key factors might be in the placebo effect (i.e. in positively enhancing healing, but not from the material effects of the treatment or drug). He suggests it is the effect of hope, attention and care; and to do with the social, not just their personal, beliefs i.e.(Pygmalion effect)
In turn that suggests these points:


• It has been established that persistent stress (unlike sharp, but passing, shocks) reduces immune system function. One service which doctors can perform is to tell a patient that they will recover. This is often not at all certain to the patient and their family. One of the reasons for mental illness being frightening to most people, is they don’t believe it will pass: this is in strong contrast to flu, food poisoning, broken bones, where they know they will recover. The assurance relieves anxiety and stress, which in turn improves immune system functioning, and so recovery.
• Thus it could be that inducing a patient (and those around them) to care for themselves is sometimes a key factor, and the basis for real healing effects independent of material interventions. This thought is further supported by the consideration that today in developed countries, the leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer) are thought to be largely controlled by lifestyles that the patient, not doctor, controls: persuading patients to behave differently is the key to controlling mortality.

Placebo vs. Hawthorne Effects

The placebo and Hawthorne effects compare and contrast in these ways: 

• Both are psychological effects on the participants, causing an effect when the material intervention has no effect.
• Both are effects produced by the participants’ perceptions and reactions; but the former emphasises their response to new equipment or methods, while the latter emphasises their response simply to being studied.
• The leading suspected cause in the placebo effect is the participants’ false belief in the material efficacy of the intervention. The leading suspected cause in the Hawthorne effect is the participants’ response to being studied i.e. to the human attention.
• In both cases, the experimenter may be deceiving the participants, or may be mistakenly sincere, or neutral with respect to the effects of the technology or intervention. In general however, the experimenter appearing to the participant to believe in the efficacy of the intervention, while not essential, may be more, or more often, important to the placebo effect than to the Hawthorne effect.

Positive Thinking
Related to placebos is evidence about how positive thinking can improve heath outcomes. This area shows that healing and recovery is affected by various kinds of positive thinking. This is not mostly about a placebo effect confounding an experiment, but about better medical outcomes for physically treated patients depending on whether they additionally have positive thinking. The mediating causes are probably: effects on pain; on how well we look after ourselves; and on reduction in persistent stress.

Pulsed electromagnetic fields in knee osteoarthritis: a double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Bagnato GN et al Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Apr;55(4)

This was a scientifically rigorous test of wearable pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) for older patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: moderate to severe cases with X-ray evidence and pain of at least 4/10 for more than six months, despite maximum tolerated medication. PEMF is particularly easy to test properly, because it causes no sensation, making it much easier to compare to an active placebo. The placebo devices do not emit a radiofrequency electromagnetic and the active device cannot be distinguished in any way from the placebo device.

Their pain and knee function were compared. PEMF won decisively: the real-PEMF patients enjoyed a 25.5% reduction in pain, compared to a 3.6% reduction for the fake-PEMF patients. Knee function improved as well, though not as much.
The authors explain that “some of the effects of this therapeutic approach might be derived from neuromodulation of the pain mechanism”: that is, it might be “just” a pain-killer, as opposed to actually helping to heal arthritic cartilage.

The role of fear avoidance beliefs as a prognostic factor for outcome in patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review.

Wertli MM et al 

Spine J. May 2014

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:
Psychological factors including fear avoidance beliefs are believed to influence the development of chronic low back pain (LBP).


PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic importance of fear avoidance beliefs as assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for clinically relevant outcomes in patients with nonspecific LBP.


RESULTS:
The most convincing evidence was found supporting fear avoidance beliefs to be a prognostic factor for work-related outcomes in patients with subacute LBP (ie, 4 weeks-3 months of LBP), researchers found an increased risk for work-related outcomes (not returning to work, sick days) with elevated FABQ scores. Fear avoidance beliefs in very acute LBP (<2 weeks) and chronic LBP (>3 months) was mostly not predictive.


CONCLUSIONS:
Evidence suggests that fear avoidance beliefs are prognostic for poor outcome in subacute LBP, and thus early treatment, including interventions to reduce fear avoidance beliefs, may avoid delayed recovery and chronicity.

Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature.

Seffinger MA et al Spine Oct 2004

OBJECTIVES:
To determine the quality of the research and assess the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures.


SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
Conflicting data have been reported over the past 35 years regarding the reliability of spinal palpatory tests.

METHODS:
The authors used 13 electronic databases and manually searched the literature from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2001. Forty-nine (6%) of 797 primary research articles met the inclusion criteria. Two blinded, independent reviewers scored each article. Consensus or a content expert reconciled discrepancies.


RESULTS:
A higher percentage of the pain provocation studies (64%) demonstrated acceptable reliability, followed by motion studies (58%), landmark (33%), and soft tissue studies (0%). Regional range of motion is more reliable than segmental range of motion, and intraexaminer reliability is better than interexaminer reliability. Overall, examiners’ discipline, experience level, consensus on procedure used, training just before the study, or use of symptomatic subjects do not improve reliability.


CONCLUSION:
The quality of the research on intra reliability and intra reliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures needs to be improved. Pain provocation tests are most reliable. Soft tissue paraspinal palpatory diagnostic tests are not reliable.

Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 16;(3)

Duivenvoorden T, Brouwer RW, et al

BACKGROUND:
Individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee can be treated with a knee brace or a foot/ankle orthosis. The main purpose of these aids is to reduce pain, improve physical function and, possibly, slow disease progression. This is the second update of the original review published in Issue 1, 2005, and first updated in 2007.


OBJECTIVES:
To assess the benefits and harms of braces and foot/ankle orthoses in the treatment of patients with OA of the knee.


CONCLUSIONS:
Evidence was inconclusive for the benefits of bracing for pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the treatment of patients with knee OA. On the basis of one laterally wedged insole versus no treatment study, we conclude that evidence of an effect on pain in patients with varus knee OA is lacking. Moderate-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a laterally wedged insole and those treated with a neutral insole. Low-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a valgus knee brace and those treated with a laterally wedged insole. The optimal choice for an orthosis remains unclear, and long-term implications are lacking.

Note: It’s interesting how committed we can be to certain ‘ideas, concepts and procedures’ when in fact there is (and perhaps never was) any real scientific backing for them(?)….