Placebo Effect in Randomized Trials of Major Depressive Disorder With Psychotic Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 1980s, the response rate of major depressive disorder with psychotic features (MDD-Psy) to placebo pills was reported to be close to 0%. To our knowledge, this placebo response rate has not been systematically reassessed. We undertook a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have used a placebo or sham control group for MDD-Psy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and identified 9 relevant publications reporting on 10 studies comparing a placebo or sham interventions versus an active intervention. We extracted reported rates of response or of dropout for all causes associated with placebo versus active intervention(s) and aggregated response and dropout rates across trials. RESULTS: Two sham-controlled electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) trials did not provide response rates. In the 3 pharmacotherapy studies published in the 1980s, 0 of 12 participants (0%) responded to placebo versus 13 of 38 (34.2%) responding to the active interventions. In contrast, 5 RCTs published in the 2000s, 114 of 339 participants (33.6%) randomized to placebo responded versus 149 of 373 participants (39.9%) randomized to active interventions; dropout rates were 71/236 (30.1%) for placebo versus 84/282 (29.8%) for the active interventions. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, response rates to placebo pills in RCTs for MDD-Psy increased markedly from the 1980s to the 2000s. Methodological issues in the design and conduct of more recent RCTs may have contributed to the high placebo response. However, one needs to consider this placebo response rate when interpreting the result of recent trials of MDD-Psy, which typically have not included a "pure" placebo condition.
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 | 0.126 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".