Premium
Wampold et al.'s reiterate spin in the conclusion of a re‐analysis of placebo versus no‐treatment trials despite similar results as in original review
Author(s) -
Hróbjartsson Asbjørn,
Gøtzsche Peter C.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.20356
Subject(s) - placebo , psychology , context (archaeology) , psychotherapist , psychoanalysis , clinical psychology , medicine , alternative medicine , paleontology , pathology , biology
In an earlier comment (Hróbjartsson & Gøtzsche, this issue) we pointed out that Wampold et al.'s conclusion “the placebo effect was robust” (2005) was not substantiated by their analysis, which came to essentially the same result as our original analysis (2001). Wampold et al. replied (this issue) that their conclusion was “… not made based on the magnitude of effect … but on a pattern of results interpreted in the context of the theory of placebo effects, the nature of the studies reviewed, other literature, and a pattern of results that corroborate predictions” (Wampold et al., this issue). In this follow‐up commentary we argue that an estimation of how robust the effect of placebo is should primarily rest on the magnitude and reproducibility of the effect. We also comment on other aspects of Wampold et al.'s reply, for example that Wampold et al.'s critique of our review is not persuasive as their analysis came to essentially the same result, indicating that the difference in methodological and theoretical approaches had little importance. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 63: 405–408, 2007.