Talk:Sham treatment/Related Articles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger (New page: == Placebo? == Placebo should be counted a subtopic of sham treatment only if every placebo is part of a sham treatment. But since this does not seem to be the case, both placebo and...) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Placebo should be counted a subtopic of sham treatment only if every placebo is part of a sham treatment. But since this does not seem to be the case, both [[placebo]] and [[placebo effect]] belong under related articles. Right, or am I confused? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | Placebo should be counted a subtopic of sham treatment only if every placebo is part of a sham treatment. But since this does not seem to be the case, both [[placebo]] and [[placebo effect]] belong under related articles. Right, or am I confused? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:It's not a clear hierarchy. A sham treatment is generally considered a subset of [[placebo]], and there are subleties depending if the use is research or therapeutic. Abstractly, a placebo-controlled clinical trial has the control arm using something that has no expected physiological effect. The ideal trial is double-blinded; not only the patient but the person administering the procedure does not know if he is doing the experimental or the control treatment. The double-blinding allows placebo effect, but prevents observer bias. | |||
:That's easy enough if the treatment is a pill. If it's a minimally invasive physical treatment such as acupuncture or therapeutic touch, the person doing the treatment cannot be blinded, because they have to know whether the patient is experimental or control -- they literally cannot act without knowing whether or not to perform a sham treatment or a real one. | |||
:Sham treatment, in some cases, carries the additional implication of causing risk but no benefit. That might be approved, in a research protocol, with something minimally invasive, such as joint aspiration under local anesthesia, but no one is going to authorize cracking a chest to do, or not do, heart surgery. | |||
:Can there be a role for sham treatment in clinical practice? Look at the articles about the ethics of use of placebo in treatment. That's written with respect to medications, but, hypothetically, I can picture a practitioner of some manipulative technique "laying on hands" with the same ethical intention as the practioner that injects saline with the suggestion it may relieve pain. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:33, 9 January 2009
Placebo?
Placebo should be counted a subtopic of sham treatment only if every placebo is part of a sham treatment. But since this does not seem to be the case, both placebo and placebo effect belong under related articles. Right, or am I confused? --Larry Sanger 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a clear hierarchy. A sham treatment is generally considered a subset of placebo, and there are subleties depending if the use is research or therapeutic. Abstractly, a placebo-controlled clinical trial has the control arm using something that has no expected physiological effect. The ideal trial is double-blinded; not only the patient but the person administering the procedure does not know if he is doing the experimental or the control treatment. The double-blinding allows placebo effect, but prevents observer bias.
- That's easy enough if the treatment is a pill. If it's a minimally invasive physical treatment such as acupuncture or therapeutic touch, the person doing the treatment cannot be blinded, because they have to know whether the patient is experimental or control -- they literally cannot act without knowing whether or not to perform a sham treatment or a real one.
- Sham treatment, in some cases, carries the additional implication of causing risk but no benefit. That might be approved, in a research protocol, with something minimally invasive, such as joint aspiration under local anesthesia, but no one is going to authorize cracking a chest to do, or not do, heart surgery.
- Can there be a role for sham treatment in clinical practice? Look at the articles about the ethics of use of placebo in treatment. That's written with respect to medications, but, hypothetically, I can picture a practitioner of some manipulative technique "laying on hands" with the same ethical intention as the practioner that injects saline with the suggestion it may relieve pain. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)