Cargando…

Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention

BACKGROUND: It can be challenging for patients and clinicians to properly interpret a change in the clinical condition after a treatment has been given. It is not known to which extent spontaneous improvement, effect of placebo and effect of active interventions contribute to the observed change fro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krogsbøll, Lasse Theis, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Gøtzsche, Peter C
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19123933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-1
_version_ 1782163757544243200
author Krogsbøll, Lasse Theis
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Gøtzsche, Peter C
author_facet Krogsbøll, Lasse Theis
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Gøtzsche, Peter C
author_sort Krogsbøll, Lasse Theis
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It can be challenging for patients and clinicians to properly interpret a change in the clinical condition after a treatment has been given. It is not known to which extent spontaneous improvement, effect of placebo and effect of active interventions contribute to the observed change from baseline, and we aimed at quantifying these contributions. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis, based on a Cochrane review of the effect of placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. We selected all trials that had randomised the patients to three arms: no treatment, placebo and active intervention, and that had used an outcome that was measured on a continuous scale or on a ranking scale. Clinical conditions that had been studied in less than three trials were excluded. RESULTS: We analysed 37 trials (2900 patients) that covered 8 clinical conditions. The active interventions were psychological in 17 trials, physical in 15 trials, and pharmacological in 5 trials. Overall, across all conditions and interventions, there was a statistically significant change from baseline in all three arms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for change from baseline was -0.24 (95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.12) for no treatment, -0.44 (-0.61 to -0.28) for placebo, and -1.01 (-1.16 to -0.86) for active treatment. Thus, on average, the relative contributions of spontaneous improvement and of placebo to that of the active interventions were 24% and 20%, respectively, but with some uncertainty, as indicated by the confidence intervals for the three SMDs. The conditions that had the most pronounced spontaneous improvement were nausea (45%), smoking (40%), depression (35%), phobia (34%) and acute pain (25%). CONCLUSION: Spontaneous improvement and effect of placebo contributed importantly to the observed treatment effect in actively treated patients, but the relative importance of these factors differed according to clinical condition and intervention.
format Text
id pubmed-2628943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26289432009-01-21 Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention Krogsbøll, Lasse Theis Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn Gøtzsche, Peter C BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: It can be challenging for patients and clinicians to properly interpret a change in the clinical condition after a treatment has been given. It is not known to which extent spontaneous improvement, effect of placebo and effect of active interventions contribute to the observed change from baseline, and we aimed at quantifying these contributions. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis, based on a Cochrane review of the effect of placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. We selected all trials that had randomised the patients to three arms: no treatment, placebo and active intervention, and that had used an outcome that was measured on a continuous scale or on a ranking scale. Clinical conditions that had been studied in less than three trials were excluded. RESULTS: We analysed 37 trials (2900 patients) that covered 8 clinical conditions. The active interventions were psychological in 17 trials, physical in 15 trials, and pharmacological in 5 trials. Overall, across all conditions and interventions, there was a statistically significant change from baseline in all three arms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for change from baseline was -0.24 (95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.12) for no treatment, -0.44 (-0.61 to -0.28) for placebo, and -1.01 (-1.16 to -0.86) for active treatment. Thus, on average, the relative contributions of spontaneous improvement and of placebo to that of the active interventions were 24% and 20%, respectively, but with some uncertainty, as indicated by the confidence intervals for the three SMDs. The conditions that had the most pronounced spontaneous improvement were nausea (45%), smoking (40%), depression (35%), phobia (34%) and acute pain (25%). CONCLUSION: Spontaneous improvement and effect of placebo contributed importantly to the observed treatment effect in actively treated patients, but the relative importance of these factors differed according to clinical condition and intervention. BioMed Central 2009-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2628943/ /pubmed/19123933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-1 Text en Copyright ©2009 Krogsbøll et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Krogsbøll, Lasse Theis
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Gøtzsche, Peter C
Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
title Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
title_full Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
title_fullStr Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
title_full_unstemmed Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
title_short Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
title_sort spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19123933
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-1
work_keys_str_mv AT krogsbølllassetheis spontaneousimprovementinrandomisedclinicaltrialsmetaanalysisofthreearmedtrialscomparingnotreatmentplaceboandactiveintervention
AT hrobjartssonasbjørn spontaneousimprovementinrandomisedclinicaltrialsmetaanalysisofthreearmedtrialscomparingnotreatmentplaceboandactiveintervention
AT gøtzschepeterc spontaneousimprovementinrandomisedclinicaltrialsmetaanalysisofthreearmedtrialscomparingnotreatmentplaceboandactiveintervention