IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial

Author

Listed:
  • Roi Treister
  • Oluwadolapo D Lawal
  • Jonathan D Shecter
  • Nevil Khurana
  • John Bothmer
  • Mark Field
  • Steven E Harte
  • Grant H Kruger
  • Nathaniel P Katz

Abstract

Analgesic trials frequently fail to demonstrate efficacy of drugs known to be efficacious. Poor pain reporting accuracy is a possible source for this low essay-sensitivity. We report the effects of Accurate-Pain-Reporting-Training (APRT) on the placebo response in a trial of Pregabalin for painful-diabetic-neuropathy. The study was a two-stage randomized, double-blind trial: In Stage-1 (Training) subjects were randomized to APRT or No-Training. The APRT participants received feedback on the accuracy of their pain reports in response to mechanical stimuli, measured by R-square score. In Stage-2 (Evaluation) all subjects entered a placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. Primary (24-h average pain intensity) and secondary (current, 24-h worst, and 24-h walking pain intensity) outcome measures were reported. Fifty-one participants completed the study. APRT patients (n = 28) demonstrated significant (p = 0.036) increases in R-square scores. The APRT group demonstrated significantly (p = 0.018) lower placebo response (0.29 ± 1.21 vs. 1.48 ± 2.21, mean difference ± SD = -1.19±1.73). No relationships were found between the R-square scores and changes in pain intensity in the treatment arm. In summary, our training successfully increased pain reporting accuracy and resulted in a diminished placebo response. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Roi Treister & Oluwadolapo D Lawal & Jonathan D Shecter & Nevil Khurana & John Bothmer & Mark Field & Steven E Harte & Grant H Kruger & Nathaniel P Katz, 2018. "Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197844
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197844
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197844
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197844&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197844?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew H McIntyre & 23andMe Research Team & Achim Kless & Peter Hein & Mark Field & Joyce Y Tung, 2020. "Validity of the cold pressor test and pain sensitivity questionnaire via online self-administration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197844. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.