↓ Skip to main content

What Is the Role of the Placebo Effect for Pain Relief in Neurorehabilitation? Clinical Implications From the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
What Is the Role of the Placebo Effect for Pain Relief in Neurorehabilitation? Clinical Implications From the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00310
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianluca Castelnuovo, Emanuele Maria Giusti, Gian Mauro Manzoni, Donatella Saviola, Samantha Gabrielli, Marco Lacerenza, Giada Pietrabissa, Roberto Cattivelli, Chiara Anna Maria Spatola, Alessandro Rossi, Giorgia Varallo, Margherita Novelli, Valentina Villa, Francesca Luzzati, Andrea Cottini, Carlo Lai, Eleonora Volpato, Cesare Cavalera, Francesco Pagnini, Valentina Tesio, Lorys Castelli, Mario Tavola, Riccardo Torta, Marco Arreghini, Loredana Zanini, Amelia Brunani, Ionathan Seitanidis, Giuseppe Ventura, Paolo Capodaglio, Guido Edoardo D’Aniello, Federica Scarpina, Andrea Brioschi, Matteo Bigoni, Lorenzo Priano, Alessandro Mauro, Giuseppe Riva, Daniele Di Lernia, Claudia Repetto, Camillo Regalia, Enrico Molinari, Paolo Notaro, Stefano Paolucci, Giorgio Sandrini, Susan Simpson, Brenda Kay Wiederhold, Santino Gaudio, Jeffrey B. Jackson, Stefano Tamburin, Fabrizio Benedetti

Abstract

It is increasingly acknowledged that the outcomes of medical treatments are influenced by the context of the clinical encounter through the mechanisms of the placebo effect. The phenomenon of placebo analgesia might be exploited to maximize the efficacy of neurorehabilitation treatments. Since its intensity varies across neurological disorders, the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation (ICCP) summarized the studies on this field to provide guidance on its use. A review of the existing reviews and meta-analyses was performed to assess the magnitude of the placebo effect in disorders that may undergo neurorehabilitation treatment. The search was performed on Pubmed using placebo, pain, and the names of neurological disorders as keywords. Methodological quality was assessed using a pre-existing checklist. Data about the magnitude of the placebo effect were extracted from the included reviews and were commented in a narrative form. 11 articles were included in this review. Placebo treatments showed weak effects in central neuropathic pain (pain reduction from 0.44 to 0.66 on a 0-10 scale) and moderate effects in postherpetic neuralgia (1.16), in diabetic peripheral neuropathy (1.45), and in pain associated to HIV (1.82). Moderate effects were also found on pain due to fibromyalgia and migraine; only weak short-term effects were found in complex regional pain syndrome. Confounding variables might have influenced these results. These estimates should be interpreted with caution, but underscore that the placebo effect can be exploited in neurorehabilitation programs. It is not necessary to conceal its use from the patient. Knowledge of placebo mechanisms can be used to shape the doctor-patient relationship, to reduce the use of analgesic drugs and to train the patient to become an active agent of the therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Other 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Master 14 8%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 44 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 23%
Psychology 23 13%
Neuroscience 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 59 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 February 2022.
All research outputs
#5,447,061
of 25,863,888 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,236
of 14,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,235
of 344,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#77
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,863,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 344,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.