Cargando…

How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

BACKGROUND: In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Linde, Klaus, Atmann, Oxana, Meissner, Karin, Schneider, Antonius, Meister, Ramona, Kriston, Levente, Werner, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30142199
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202211
_version_ 1783350146600271872
author Linde, Klaus
Atmann, Oxana
Meissner, Karin
Schneider, Antonius
Meister, Ramona
Kriston, Levente
Werner, Christoph
author_facet Linde, Klaus
Atmann, Oxana
Meissner, Karin
Schneider, Antonius
Meister, Ramona
Kriston, Levente
Werner, Christoph
author_sort Linde, Klaus
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. CONCLUSION: High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6108457
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61084572018-09-18 How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys Linde, Klaus Atmann, Oxana Meissner, Karin Schneider, Antonius Meister, Ramona Kriston, Levente Werner, Christoph PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. CONCLUSION: High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods. Public Library of Science 2018-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6108457/ /pubmed/30142199 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202211 Text en © 2018 Linde et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Linde, Klaus
Atmann, Oxana
Meissner, Karin
Schneider, Antonius
Meister, Ramona
Kriston, Levente
Werner, Christoph
How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
title How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
title_full How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
title_fullStr How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
title_full_unstemmed How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
title_short How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
title_sort how often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6108457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30142199
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202211
work_keys_str_mv AT lindeklaus howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys
AT atmannoxana howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys
AT meissnerkarin howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys
AT schneiderantonius howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys
AT meisterramona howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys
AT kristonlevente howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys
AT wernerchristoph howoftendogeneralpractitionersuseplacebosandnonspecificinterventionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofsurveys