A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.
Abstract
Ethical implications of using placebos.
Main
Howick J, Bishop F L et al. PLoS ONE 2013; 18: e58247. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
How often does a dentist prescribe a mouthwash for ambiguous symptoms (impure placebo), or even carry out a 'sham' adjustment of a removable prosthesis (pure placebo)? Also described in this paper is a nocebo. Merriam-Wester states a nocebo is a harmless intervention that is nevertheless associated with 'adverse effects due to negative expectations'. An example would be the provision of a stabilisation splint for tinnitus. In this study, 783 UK general medical practitioners (from 1,715 invited) completed a web-based questionnaire. Seventy-seven percent of practitioners used impure placebos and 1% used pure placebos, at least once a week. However when a placebo is used, invariably the patient is not afforded the moral imperative and legal right to give real consent. The implications of the final sentence 'Further investigations are warranted to develop ethical and cost-effective placebos' require careful examination.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Placebo use in the United Kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners. Br Dent J 214, 453 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.460
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.460