↓ Skip to main content

Research on placebo analgesia is relevant to clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Research on placebo analgesia is relevant to clinical practice
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/2045-709x-22-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles W Gay, Mark D Bishop

Abstract

Over the decades, research into placebo responses has shed light onto several endogenous (i.e. produced from within) mechanisms underlying modulation of pain perception initiated after the administration of inert substances (i.e. placebos). Chiropractors and manual therapists should embrace analgesic-placebo-research in an attempt to maximize clinical benefit. Historical views that placebo responses are fake, passive, undesirable, and require deception and therefore should be minimized and avoided in clinical practice are outdated. Further, statements that contend the placebo response represents a single mechanism are overly simplistic. This commentary will discuss research that shows that there are several active biological processes underlying modulation of pain perception involved in placebo analgesia and its counterpart nocebo hyperalgesia. We contend that it is highly likely that, to some extent, all of these biological processes are engaged, in varying degrees, following all interventions and represent endogenous pain modulating processes. Failure, of chiropractors and manual therapists, to embrace a more contemporary view of analgesic-placebo-research serves as a barrier to transferring knowledge into clinical practice and represents a missed opportunity to improve the delivery of current treatments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Other 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Psychology 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2014.
All research outputs
#1,927,536
of 13,864,849 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#133
of 372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,489
of 247,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,864,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.