Expectancy Effects, Failure of Blinding Integrity, and Placebo Response in Trials of Treatments for Psychiatric Disorders

IF 22.5 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Nathan T. M. Huneke, Guilherme Fusetto Veronesi, Matthew Garner, David S. Baldwin, Samuele Cortese
{"title":"Expectancy Effects, Failure of Blinding Integrity, and Placebo Response in Trials of Treatments for Psychiatric Disorders","authors":"Nathan T. M. Huneke, Guilherme Fusetto Veronesi, Matthew Garner, David S. Baldwin, Samuele Cortese","doi":"10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ImportanceExpectancy effects are significant confounding factors in psychiatric randomized clinical trials (RCTs), potentially affecting the interpretation of study results. This narrative review is the first, to our knowledge, to explore the relationship between expectancy effects, compromised blinding integrity, and the effects of active treatment/placebo in psychiatric RCTs. Additionally, we present statistical and experimental approaches that may help mitigate the confounding impact of expectancy effects. The review concludes with recommendations to enhance the reliability of RCTs in psychiatry.ObservationsThe placebo response comprises both specific and nonspecific elements, with expectation being a key specific component. Evidence from experimental and clinical studies suggests that expectancy can influence treatment responses in RCTs. Blinding integrity may be compromised by perceived treatment efficacy and adverse effects, introducing bias into outcome assessments. Treatment expectations can lead to unblinding during RCTs, and meta-analytic data from studies in the fields of psychedelics and anxiety disorders indicate that this can influence effect sizes. Therefore, controlling for expectancy effects is essential when interpreting RCT results. Novel statistical methods, though still in need of further validation, offer strategies to address this issue. Another approach may involve experimental medicine models, which aim to develop objective improvement markers (readouts) less affected by expectancy effects.Conclusions and RelevanceExpectancy effects represent a significant confound in psychiatric RCTs. We recommend collecting data on treatment expectations alongside monitoring blinding integrity to more accurately interpret study results. Additionally, developing objective readouts that are less confounded by expectancy effects offers another promising avenue for mitigating these confounding influences in psychiatric RCTs.","PeriodicalId":14800,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Psychiatry","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":22.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0085","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ImportanceExpectancy effects are significant confounding factors in psychiatric randomized clinical trials (RCTs), potentially affecting the interpretation of study results. This narrative review is the first, to our knowledge, to explore the relationship between expectancy effects, compromised blinding integrity, and the effects of active treatment/placebo in psychiatric RCTs. Additionally, we present statistical and experimental approaches that may help mitigate the confounding impact of expectancy effects. The review concludes with recommendations to enhance the reliability of RCTs in psychiatry.ObservationsThe placebo response comprises both specific and nonspecific elements, with expectation being a key specific component. Evidence from experimental and clinical studies suggests that expectancy can influence treatment responses in RCTs. Blinding integrity may be compromised by perceived treatment efficacy and adverse effects, introducing bias into outcome assessments. Treatment expectations can lead to unblinding during RCTs, and meta-analytic data from studies in the fields of psychedelics and anxiety disorders indicate that this can influence effect sizes. Therefore, controlling for expectancy effects is essential when interpreting RCT results. Novel statistical methods, though still in need of further validation, offer strategies to address this issue. Another approach may involve experimental medicine models, which aim to develop objective improvement markers (readouts) less affected by expectancy effects.Conclusions and RelevanceExpectancy effects represent a significant confound in psychiatric RCTs. We recommend collecting data on treatment expectations alongside monitoring blinding integrity to more accurately interpret study results. Additionally, developing objective readouts that are less confounded by expectancy effects offers another promising avenue for mitigating these confounding influences in psychiatric RCTs.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA Psychiatry
JAMA Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
30.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
233
期刊介绍: JAMA Psychiatry is a global, peer-reviewed journal catering to clinicians, scholars, and research scientists in psychiatry, mental health, behavioral science, and related fields. The Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry originated in 1919, splitting into two journals in 1959: Archives of Neurology and Archives of General Psychiatry. In 2013, these evolved into JAMA Neurology and JAMA Psychiatry, respectively. JAMA Psychiatry is affiliated with the JAMA Network, a group of peer-reviewed medical and specialty publications.
×
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