Brietzke Cayque, Alves Ribeiro Wesley, Franco-Alvarenga Paulo Estevão, Canestri Raul, Vínicius Ìtalo, Vasconcelos Gustavo, Cesario Julio, Carvas Junior Nelson, Salles Painelli Vitor de, Oliveira Pires Flávio
Exercise Psychophysiology Research Group. School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities-University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Human Movement Science and Rehabilitation Program, Federal University of São Paulo, Santos, Brazil.
Brain Behav. 2025 Jun;15(6):e70534. doi: 10.1002/brb3.70534.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and synthesize the effect size and quality of the literature on the placebo and nocebo effects on motor performance and motor-related perceptive responses. DESIGN: Umbrella review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for peer-reviewed literature, PROSPERO for protocols, and the Open Access Theses and Dissertations for gray literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Population-human participants with varied health conditions; intervention: placebo; control: no treatment or active intervention; outcome: motor performance (primary) and perceptual variables (secondary); study design-ystematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 3432 records were gathered from searches, resulting in 13 eligible reviews after screening. These reviews encompassed 247 original studies, with 221 focusing on the placebo effect and 26 on the nocebo effect. Among all eligible systematic reviews, five conducted meta-analysis with 5036 participants, and one provided a summary of effect sizes reported by the original studies with 1215 participants. The reviews reported small to large effects of placebo (SMD = 0.09-0.93) and nocebo (SMD = 0.37-1.20), and only two conducted the GRADE assessment. CONCLUSION: We found varied placebo and nocebo effects on motor performance, likely due to the poor quality of the methodology used by most reviews, highlighting the need for well-conducted systematic reviews on the placebo and nocebo phenomena.
目的:评估并综合分析关于安慰剂和反安慰剂效应在运动表现及与运动相关的感知反应方面的效应量和文献质量。 设计:伞状综述。 数据来源:Medline、Embase、Lilacs、Cochrane系统评价数据库(用于同行评审文献)、PROSPERO(用于方案)以及开放获取学位论文数据库(用于灰色文献)。 研究选择的纳入标准:人群——健康状况各异的人类参与者;干预:安慰剂;对照:无治疗或积极干预;结局:运动表现(主要)和感知变量(次要);研究设计——有或无荟萃分析的系统评价。 结果:通过检索共收集到3432条记录,筛选后得到13篇符合条件的综述。这些综述涵盖247项原始研究,其中221项聚焦安慰剂效应,26项聚焦反安慰剂效应。在所有符合条件的系统评价中,5项进行了荟萃分析,涉及5036名参与者,1项对1215名参与者的原始研究报告的效应量进行了总结。这些综述报告了安慰剂(标准化均数差=0.09 - 0.93)和反安慰剂(标准化均数差=0.37 - 1.20)的效应从小到大都有,且仅有两项进行了GRADE评估。 结论:我们发现安慰剂和反安慰剂效应在运动表现方面存在差异,这可能是由于大多数综述所使用方法的质量较差,凸显了对安慰剂和反安慰剂现象进行高质量系统评价的必要性。
Brain Behav. 2025-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-4-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-1-13
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-3-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-3-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-1-20
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-9-14
Health Psychol. 2024-1
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022-11
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022-5-14
Chiropr Man Therap. 2022-4-21