MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969355924 · doi:10.1080/00207144.2011.522896

Do Standards for the Design and Reporting of Nonpharmacological Trials Facilitate Hypnotherapy Studies?

2010· review· en· W1969355924 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabelle Marc, Marie‐Claude Pelland‐Marcotte, Edzard Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHypnosisPsychologyPsychotherapistMEDLINEAlternative medicineMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and quality of 30 recent hypnotherapy trials (years 2000-2008) were assessed using the checklist for evaluating a report of nonpharmacological treatment (CLEAR NPT). Randomization was adequately reported in 53% of studies. The masking of participants and care providers is not feasible in hypnotherapy studies. Assessor masking is rarely introduced in randomized, controlled trials (27%). Reporting and quality of published hypnotherapy trials need to be improved. Investigators may consider using CLEAR NPT to evaluate study quality but attention should be paid to document intervention adherence, standardization of cointerventions, participant and care-provider expectations and beliefs, and, finally, hypnotizability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.748
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental HypnosisSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207