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

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
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, Monika Heller, Natasha Hughes, Danielle Marr, Benjamin Brake, Sarah Chapman, G James Rubin, Devin B Terhune","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 8,469 search results, 105 experiments comprising 5,017 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"106042"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106042","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 8,469 search results, 105 experiments comprising 5,017 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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信