MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287306764 · doi:10.1177/07067437221115029

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Placebo Effect and its Correlates in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

2022· review· en· W4287306764 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Safoura Mohamadi, Masoud Ahmadzad-Asl, Seyed Aria Nejadghaderi, Roxana Jabbari Nejad Kermani, Seyed Hamidreza Mirbehbahani, Mark Sinyor, Margaret A. Richter, Farnoush Davoudi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsPlaceboMeta-analysisConfidence intervalAnxietyCochrane LibraryMedicineObsessive compulsiveDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a major mental health condition with a lifetime prevalence rate of 1.3% among adults. While placebo effects are well described for conditions such as depressive and anxiety disorders, they have not been systematically characterized in OCD. Objectives We aimed to determine the impact of placebos in improving different symptom domains in patients with OCD. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases/search engine from inception to January 2021 for randomized controlled trials of treatments for OCD with a placebo arm. A modified Cohen's effect size (ES) was calculated using change in baseline to endpoint scores for different measurement scales within placebo arms to estimate placebo effects and to investigate their correlates by random-effects model meta-analyses. Results Forty-nine clinical trials (placebo group n = 1993), reporting 80 OCD specific (153 measures in general) were included in the analysis. Overall placebo ES (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.32 (0.22–0.41) on OCD symptoms, with substantial heterogeneity (I-square = 96.1%). Among secondary outcomes, general scales, ES: 0.27 (95%CI: 0.14–0.41), demonstrated higher ES than anxiety and depression scales, ES: 0.14 (95%CI: −0.4 to 0.32) and 0.05 (95%CI: −0.05 to 0.14), respectively. Clinician-rated scales, ES: 0.27(95%CI: 0.20–0.34), had a higher ES than self-reported scales, ES: 0.07 (95%CI: −0.08 to 0.22). More recent publication year, larger placebo group sample size, shorter follow-up duration, and younger age of participants were all associated with larger placebo ES. Egger's test reflected possible small-study effect publication bias ( P = 0.029). Conclusion Placebo effects are modest in OCD trials and are larger in clinician ratings, for younger patients, and early in the treatment course. These findings underscore the need for clinicians and scientists to be mindful of placebo effects when formulating treatments or research trials for OCD. 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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.259 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207