↓ Skip to main content

Clinical relevance of contextual factors as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects in musculoskeletal pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 2,885)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
313 tweeters
facebook
21 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
343 Mendeley
Title
Clinical relevance of contextual factors as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects in musculoskeletal pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-1943-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giacomo Rossettini, Elisa Carlino, Marco Testa

Abstract

Placebo and nocebo effects are embodied psycho-neurobiological responses capable of modulating pain and producing changes at different neurobiological, body at perceptual and cognitive levels. These modifications are triggered by different contextual factors (CFs) presented in the therapeutic encounter between patient and healthcare providers, such as healing rituals and signs. The CFs directly impact on the quality of the therapeutic outcome: a positive context, that is a context characterized by the presence of positive CFs, can reduce pain by producing placebo effects, while a negative context, characterized by the presence of negative CFs, can aggravate pain by creating nocebo effects. Despite the increasing interest about this topic; the detailed study of CFs as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects is still lacked in the management of musculoskeletal pain.Increasing evidence suggest a relevant role of CFs in musculoskeletal pain management. CFs are a complex sets of internal, external or relational elements encompassing: patient's expectation, history, baseline characteristics; clinician's behavior, belief, verbal suggestions and therapeutic touch; positive therapeutic encounter, patient-centered approach and social learning; overt therapy, posology of intervention, modality of treatment administration; marketing features of treatment and health care setting. Different explanatory models such as classical conditioning and expectancy can explain how CFs trigger placebo and nocebo effects. CFs act through specific neural networks and neurotransmitters that were described as mediators of placebo and nocebo effects.Available findings suggest a relevant clinical role and impact of CFs. They should be integrated in the clinical reasoning to increase the number of treatment solutions, boosts their efficacy and improve the quality of the decision-making. From a clinical perspective, the mindful manipulation of CFs represents a useful opportunity to enrich a well-established therapy in therapeutic setting within the ethical border. From a translational perspective, there is a strong need of research studies on CFs close to routine and real-world clinical practice in order to underline the uncertainty of therapy action and help clinicians to implement knowledge in daily practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 313 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 343 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 343 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 21%
Other 50 15%
Student > Bachelor 38 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 9%
Researcher 25 7%
Other 75 22%
Unknown 50 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 102 30%
Psychology 16 5%
Neuroscience 14 4%
Sports and Recreations 12 3%
Other 24 7%
Unknown 71 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 202. 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 12 March 2020.
All research outputs
#76,301
of 14,545,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#4
of 2,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,499
of 358,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,545,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 358,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them