1. To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials
- Author
-
Cindy Crawford, Luana Colloca, Franklin G. Miller, Klaus Linde, Karin Meissner, Levente Kriston, Ted J. Kaptchuk, Wayne B. Jonas, and Bruce Moseley
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Evidence-based practice ,INTERNAL MEDICINE ,COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE ,CINAHL ,PsycINFO ,Cochrane Library ,Placebo ,Humans ,Medicine ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,business.industry ,Research ,General Medicine ,Placebo Effect ,Random effects model ,ddc ,Surgery ,Data extraction ,Meta-analysis ,Gastroesophageal Reflux ,Chronic Pain ,business - Abstract
Objectives To assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015. Study selection We included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison. Data extraction and analysis Three authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups. Results 55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF