Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (798 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
An effect usually, but not necessarily, beneficial that is attributable to an expectation that the regimen will have an effect, i.e., the effect is due to the power of suggestion.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Effect, Placebo; Placebo Response; Response, Placebo.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic
- Narrower topics
- Nocebo Effect
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 5,918 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Placebo Effect” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 1,138 of them (19.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 2,542 records.
Reviews account for 1,458 records (24.6%) and meta-analyses for 451. Randomized controlled trials number 1,731 (29.2%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 521 |
| 2000-2009 | 1,717 |
| 2010-2019 | 2,542 |
| 2020 onward | 1,138 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 1,458 | 24.6% |
| Meta-analyses | 451 | 7.6% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,731 | 29.2% |
Method: PubMed query "Placebo Effect"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in public health and nutrition
Population and nutrition studies mostly observe what people eat, breathe or are exposed to and then look for links with health, which shows association and not proof of cause. Self-reported diet is imprecise, people who eat or live differently also differ in other ways, and effects measured across a population may not apply to one person. Check the study design, how exposure was measured, what else was accounted for and the size of the effect, not only whether it was statistically significant.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Self-blinding citizen science to explore psychedelic microdosing [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Microdosing is the practice of regularly using low doses of psychedelic drugs.
- Closing excerpt
- The findings suggest that anecdotal benefits of microdosing can be explained by the placebo effect.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (152 words)
Microdosing is the practice of regularly using low doses of psychedelic drugs. Anecdotal reports suggest that microdosing enhances well-being and cognition; however, such accounts are potentially biased by the placebo effect. This study used a 'self-blinding' citizen science initiative, where participants were given online instructions on how to incorporate placebo control into their microdosing routine without clinical supervision. The study was completed by 191 participants, making it the largest placebo-controlled trial on psychedelics to-date. All psychological outcomes improved significantly from baseline to after the 4 weeks long dose period for the microdose group; however, the placebo group also improved and no significant between-groups differences were observed. Acute (emotional state, drug intensity, mood, energy, and creativity) and post-acute (anxiety) scales showed small, but significant microdose vs. placebo differences; however, these results can be explained by participants breaking blind. The findings suggest that anecdotal benefits of microdosing can be explained by the placebo effect.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33648632 · DOI · PMC7925122
Placebo response and effect in randomized clinical trials: meta-research with focus on contextual effects [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundContextual effects (i.
- Closing excerpt
- Registered on April 19, 2019.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (260 words)
BackgroundContextual effects (i.e., placebo response) refer to all health changes resulting from administering an apparently inactive treatment. In a randomized clinical trial (RCT), the overall treatment effect (i.e., the post-treatment effect in the intervention group) can be regarded as the true effect of the intervention plus the impact of contextual effects. This meta-research was conducted to examine the average proportion of the overall treatment effect attributable to contextual effects in RCTs across clinical conditions and treatments and explore whether it varies with trial contextual factors.MethodsData was extracted from trials included in the main meta-analysis from the latest update of the Cochrane review on "Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions" (searched from 1966 to March 2008). Only RCTs reported in English having an experimental intervention group, a placebo comparator group, and a no-treatment control group were eligible.ResultsIn total, 186 trials (16,655 patients) were included. On average, 54% (0.54, 95%CI 0.46 to 0.64) of the overall treatment effect was attributable to contextual effects. The contextual effects were higher for trials with blinded outcome assessor and concealed allocation. The contextual effects appeared to increase proportional to the placebo effect, lower mean age, and proportion of females.ConclusionApproximately half of the overall treatment effect in RCTs seems attributable to contextual effects rather than to the specific effect of treatments. As the study did not include all important contextual factors (e.g., patient-provider interaction), the true proportion of contextual effects could differ from the study's results. However, contextual effects should be considered when assessing treatment effects in clinical practice.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019130257 . Registered on April 19, 2019.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34311793 · DOI · PMC8314506
Why do open-label placebos work? A randomized controlled trial of an open-label placebo induction with and without extended information about the placebo effect in allergic rhinitis [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundSeveral studies demonstrated that placebo treatment may have a significant impact on many different symptoms.
- Closing excerpt
- Clinical trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012303.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (206 words)
BackgroundSeveral studies demonstrated that placebo treatment may have a significant impact on many different symptoms. While in the traditional view concealment of the placebo is essential, recent studies report intriguing evidence that placebos may work even without deception. For example, it has been demonstrated that open-label placebos can improve symptoms in allergic rhinitis. However, the mechanisms of how placebos without concealment work remain unknown.Trial designIn order to examine expectancy effects we conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 46), in which patients with allergic symptoms received either placebos without deception or no pills at all. In half of those patients we induced positive expectations about the placebo effect. After two weeks we tested whether symptoms and quality of life had changed.ResultsResults revealed that open-label placebos improved allergic symptoms more than the control group. Inducing positive expectations had no effects on the improvement of allergic symptoms (the primary and more objective outcome), but on mental sum scores of the quality of life questionnaire.ConclusionsPlacebos without deception can improve symptoms in allergic rhinitis. Positive expectations do not contribute to the efficacy of open-label placebos, but seem to have an effect on more global and subjective well-being (mental or emotional quality of life).Clinical trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012303.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29513699 · DOI · PMC5841659
Forebrain networks driving brainstem pain modulatory circuits during nocebo hyperalgesia in healthy humans [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- AbstractPrior experiences, conditioning cues, and expectations of improvement are essential for nocebo hyperalgesia expression.
- Closing excerpt
- Overall, our results show that there is a complex relationship between forebrain activation and connectivity with brainstem pain modulation circuitry that results in the behavioural expression of nocebo hyperalgesia.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (180 words)
AbstractPrior experiences, conditioning cues, and expectations of improvement are essential for nocebo hyperalgesia expression. The neural circuits that communicate with brainstem pain modulatory nuclei during nocebo hyperalgesia responsivity are underexplored. In this study, we employed a classical conditioning and expectation model in 25 healthy human participants and measured brain activity using ultra-high field functional magnetic resonance imaging. We assessed forebrain activity changes as well as noxious stimulus-independent and -dependent connectivity changes with the lateral midbrain periaqueductal gray matter (lPAG). We found hyperalgesia-related signal increases in the orbitofrontal cortex, insula, and amygdala. In addition, we found stimulus-dependent lPAG connectivity changes with the orbitofrontal, anterior cingulate, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices and stimulus-independent lPAG connectivity with the anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and nucleus accumbens during hyperalgesia. Whilst these connectivity changes are all associated with hyperalgesia, dynamic causal modelling analysis revealed that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was principally responsible for driving the lPAG. Overall, our results show that there is a complex relationship between forebrain activation and connectivity with brainstem pain modulation circuitry that results in the behavioural expression of nocebo hyperalgesia.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40232878 · DOI · PMC12363485
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health [5]
- Research article Placebo and Nocebo Effects [6]
- Research article The placebo effect and its determinants in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials [7]
- Research article Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus [8]
- Research article Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy [9]
- Research article The placebo effect in irritable bowel syndrome trials: a meta-analysis [10]
References
- Szigeti B, Kartner L, Blemings A, Rosas F, Feilding A, Nutt DJ, et al.. Self-blinding citizen science to explore psychedelic microdosing. . 2021. PMID 33648632 · DOI · PMC7925122
- Hafliðadóttir SH, Juhl CB, Nielsen SM, Henriksen M, Harris IA, Bliddal H, et al.. Placebo response and effect in randomized clinical trials: meta-research with focus on contextual effects. . 2021. PMID 34311793 · DOI · PMC8314506
- Schaefer M, Sahin T, Berstecher B. Why do open-label placebos work? A randomized controlled trial of an open-label placebo induction with and without extended information about the placebo effect in allergic rhinitis. . 2018. PMID 29513699 · DOI · PMC5841659
- Crawford LS, Yang S, Meylakh N, Sattarov L, Ramachandran A, Macefield VG, et al.. Forebrain networks driving brainstem pain modulatory circuits during nocebo hyperalgesia in healthy humans. . 2025. PMID 40232878 · DOI · PMC12363485
- Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015. PMID 26087681 · DOI · PMC6013051
- Colloca L, Barsky AJ. Placebo and Nocebo Effects. N Engl J Med. 2020. PMID 32023375 · DOI
- Zhang W, Robertson J, Jones AC, Dieppe PA, Doherty M. The placebo effect and its determinants in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008. PMID 18541604 · DOI
- Evers AWM, Colloca L, Blease C, Annoni M, Atlas LY, Benedetti F, et al.. Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus. Psychother Psychosom. 2018. PMID 29895014 · DOI · PMC6191882
- Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, et al.. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet. 2005. PMID 16125589 · DOI
- Patel SM, Stason WB, Legedza A, Ock SM, Kaptchuk TJ, Conboy L, et al.. The placebo effect in irritable bowel syndrome trials: a meta-analysis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005. PMID 15916620 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.