Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 550 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2011 Feb;15(1):35-8. doi: 10.1007/s11916-010-0162-2.
Confirming the absence of the placebo response has been the bane of researchers throughout the ages. Thus, the gold standard of research methodology is the evidence for a treatment modality provided by a prospective randomized controlled trial. The "control" arm of a trial is the arm in which the placebo has been administered. Increasing evidence from basic science and clinical research is pointing to the fact that the placebo response may have some biological basis that can translate into enduring therapeutic benefit. Have our placebo-controlled trials simply compared one treatment effect to the treatment effect of the "placebo"? Thus, the "δ" is relative treatment effect; perhaps this may provide some insight as to why some treatment response is low compared to a relatively strong placebo response. How can we use this knowledge to create more robust clinical designs that help establish true treatment effect? This article aims to provide an overview of the contemporary insight into the placebo response.
确认安慰剂效应的缺失一直是历代研究人员的难题。因此，研究方法的金标准是前瞻性随机对照试验提供的治疗方式的证据。试验的“对照”臂是给予安慰剂的臂。越来越多的基础科学和临床研究证据表明，安慰剂效应可能具有一定的生物学基础，可以转化为持久的治疗益处。我们的安慰剂对照试验是否只是将一种治疗效果与“安慰剂”的治疗效果进行了比较？因此，“δ”是相对治疗效果；也许这可以解释为什么与相对较强的安慰剂反应相比，某些治疗反应较低的原因。我们如何利用这些知识来创建更强大的临床设计，以帮助确立真正的治疗效果？本文旨在提供对安慰剂反应的当代见解概述。
