↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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passive, undesirable, and require deception and therefore should be minimized and avoided in clinical practice are outdated.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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 28%
Other 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 21%
Psychology 4 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 19%