Systematic review and meta-analysis of the placebo effect in panic disorder: Implications for research and clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This review aimed to measure the degree of placebo response in panic disorder. Data Sources: We searched major databases up to 31 January 2021, for randomized pharmacotherapy trials published in English. Study Selection: A total of 43 studies met inclusion criteria to be in the analysis (with 174 separate outcome measurements). Data Extraction: Changes in outcome measures from baseline in the placebo group were used to estimate modified Cohen’s d effect size. Results: A total of 43 trials (2392 subjects, 174 outcomes using 27 rating scales) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall placebo effect size was 0.57 (95% confidence interval = [0.50, 0.64]), heterogeneity ( I 2 : 96.3%). Higher placebo effect size was observed among clinician-rated scales compared to patient reports (0.75 vs 0.35) and among general symptom and anxiety scales compared to panic symptoms and depression scales (0.92 and 0.64 vs 0.56 and 0.54, respectively). There was an upward trend in effect size over the publication period ( r = 0.02, p = 0.002) that was only significant among clinician-rated scales ( r = 0.02, p = 0.011). There was no significant publication bias, Egger’s test ( p = 0.08). Conclusion: We observed a substantial placebo effect size in panic disorder. This effect was more prominent for some aspects of panic disorder psychopathology than for others and was correlated with the source of the assessment and publication year. This finding has implications both for research design, to address the heterogeneity and diversity in placebo responses, and for clinical practice to ensure optimal quality of care. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO, CRD42019125979.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".