- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
Interaction between drug and placebo effects: a cross-over balanced placebo design trial
© Hammami et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
- Received: 9 June 2010
- Accepted: 19 November 2010
- Published: 19 November 2010
The total effect of a medication is the sum of its drug effect, placebo effect (meaning response), and their possible interaction. Current interpretation of clinical trials' results assumes no interaction. Demonstrating such an interaction has been difficult due to lack of an appropriate study design.
180 adults were randomized to caffeine (300 mg) or placebo groups. Each group received the assigned intervention described by the investigators as caffeine or placebo, in a randomized crossover design. 4-hour-area-under-the-curve of energy, sleepiness, nausea (on 100 mm visual analog scales), and systolic blood pressure levels as well as caffeine pharmacokinetics (in 22 volunteers nested in the caffeine group) were determined. Caffeine drug, placebo, placebo-plus-interaction, and total effects were estimated by comparing outcomes after, receiving caffeine described as placebo to receiving placebo described as placebo, receiving placebo described as caffeine or placebo, receiving caffeine described as caffeine or placebo, and receiving caffeine described as caffeine to receiving placebo described as placebo, respectively.
The placebo effect on area-under-the-curve of energy (mean difference) and sleepiness (geometric mean ratio) was larger than placebo-plus-interaction effect (16.6 [95% CI, 4.1 to 29.0] vs. 8.4 [-4.2 to 21.0] mm*hr and 0.58 [0.39 to 0.86] vs. 0.69 [0.49 to 0.97], respectively), similar in size to drug effect (20.8 [3.8 to 37.8] mm*hr and 0.49 [0.30 to 0.91], respectively), and its combination with the later was larger than total caffeine effect (29.5 [11.9 to 47.1] mm*hr and 0.37 [0.22 to 0.64]). Placebo-plus-interaction effect increased caffeine terminal half-life by 0.40 [0.12 to 0.68] hr (P = 0.007).
Drug and placebo effects of a medication may be less than additive, which influences the interpretation of clinical trials. The placebo effect may increase active drug terminal half-life, a novel mechanism of placebo action.
ClinicalTrials.gov identification number - NCT00426010.
- Placebo Effect
- Bioequivalence Study
- Caffeine Withdrawal
The placebo effect has been utilized in medical practice since antiquity and continues to be commonly used . Recent systematic reviews [2, 3] doubted the existence and clinical importance of a placebo effect despite evidence to the contrary [4–7], and more studies have been advocated to investigate its underlying mechanism(s) and clinical applications .
Comparing changes over time in the placebo arm of a clinical trial doesn't separate the placebo effect (meaning response)  from methodological factors such as regression to the mean, natural course, and the Hawthorne effect, and thus exaggerates the placebo effect , whereas comparing changes observed in the placebo arm to a no-treatment-control arm may underestimate the placebo effect since enrolled subjects know that they have only a 50% chance of getting a putatively active drug [5, 10, 11]. The balanced placebo design, where subjects receiving a test substance or a placebo are either informed that they are receiving this substance or placebo, or vice versa, can validly investigate the placebo effect  and has been used to study the placebo effect of several substances [13–18] including caffeine . A modified balanced placebo model that uses a cross-over rather than parallel design has the advantage of reducing noise variation and sample size (which is ethically important in a design that employs deception) and permits the conduct of a standard bioequivalence study.
Few studies compared sizes of the placebo and drug components of a given medication effect or addressed their potential interaction [13, 19–21]. Current interpretation of clinical trials assumes that there is no such interaction [21, 22], and that the difference between medication and placebo arms represents drug effect rather than a combination of drug and interaction effects. Evaluating a potential interaction between drug and placebo effects allows testing the possibility that a placebo group may not be a good control group in clinical trials. Several studies have described various pharmacodynamic effects of placebos [13–18, 23], however, the possibility that the placebo effect may involve modulation of drug bioavailability has not been explored. For example, it is theoretically possible that the placebo effect may involve altering gastric emptying, intestinal transit time, or drug elimination. Evaluating such possibility may provide insight into the mechanism of placebo and interaction effects as well as an objective outcome measure of the placebo effect.
Using a novel cross-over balanced placebo design, we measured the placebo effect on continuous and binary scales to: 1) explore potential interaction of drug and placebo effects by comparing the difference between receiving placebo described as caffeine or as placebo (placebo effect) to the difference between receiving caffeine described as caffeine or as placebo (placebo+interaction effect) and by comparing measured total medication effect to the sum of drug and placebo effects, 2) estimate the relative size of the placebo effect, and 3) explore the placebo effect on caffeine pharmacokinetics. Healthy subjects and caffeine were selected because of expected familiarity of caffeine effects to volunteers and of its safety profile as well as for ethical reasons, since the study design includes deception. We were able to measure an important placebo effect both on continuous and binary scales. Further, we found that the drug and placebo effects are less than additive and that the placebo effect may be due in part to modulation of the bioavailability of the active drug.
Participants were block-randomized (block size of four) to one of two randomized cross-over studies, one using caffeine described as caffeine or placebo and one using placebo described as placebo or caffeine. A 14 hour pharmacokinetics study was nested in the caffeine cross-over study. The wash-out time between the two periods of each balanced randomized cross-over study was 48 hours to allow for clearance of plasma caffeine  and most of caffeine (and caffeine withdrawal) effects , and minimize the occurrence of intra-subject differences. Balanced design was used to eliminate any differential residual carryover effect. There was no changes to methods after study commencement.
Eligibility criteria for participants included an age of 18 to 50 years; being healthy, non-smoker, medication-free for one week, and able to reproducibly express oneself using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS); and daily caffeine consumption between 100 to 300 mg. The first was assessed by requesting participants to complete 7 VASs (on restlessness, irritability, flushing, headache, energy, sleepiness, and nausea) before and after obtaining their screening vital signs and without their knowledge of going to be retested. A difference of more than 10 mm on more than one VAS resulted in exclusion. The range of daily caffeine consumption was selected to minimize caffeine withdrawal symptoms and adverse effects (in caffeine-naïve subjects) and was estimated using the "Caffeine Content of Foods and Drugs" http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.htm.
The study was conducted at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH & RC), Riyadh in February 2007 through February 2009, from 8-9 am to 12-1 pm. It followed published ethical guidelines on deception use in clinical research [7, 8, 22] and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of KFSH & RC. All participants gave written consent being informed that the study is designed to compare the effects of capsules containing placebo or 300 mg caffeine (equivalent to 3 cups of brewed coffee), that the study aims to determine how much of the observed changes is not related to caffeine but to the placebo effect, and that they have a 50/50 chance of receiving a placebo or caffeine. They were given the choice to participate in the main 4-hour study or an extended 14-hour sub-study, and were compensated based on the Wage-Payment model . At the completion of the entire study, and after obtaining their monetary compensation, they were contacted for briefing and a delayed consent, which was obtained from all the 95 contactable participants. None indicated that they have guessed the actual study aims. No adverse events (other than nausea) were noted.
Participants were requested to abstain from smoking and drinking alcohol for 2 days and from caffeine-containing beverages or food for 16 hours, before and throughout each study period, to fast from 9 pm, and to sleep for at least 8 hours.
To enhance the placebo effect, caffeine effects (and placebo-no-effect) were emphasized just before intervention and participants were requested to sign a statement to that effect (available in the supplement). Participants assigned to caffeine received 300 mg caffeine twice, 48 hours apart, one time dispensed from a bottle labelled "caffeine" and one time from a bottle labelled "placebo" in a random fashion. Participants assigned to placebo received placebo twice, 48 hours apart, one time dispensed from a bottle labelled "caffeine" and one time from a bottle labelled "placebo" in a random fashion. Caffeine and placebo were administered in the form of 2 capsules with 250 ml of water at ambient temperature, 15 to 30 minutes after a standardized light breakfast. Participants then abstained from food for four hours and remained ambulatory or seated upright until the end of the study. To enhance blinding and verify compliance, blood was drawn via intravenous cannula from all participants for caffeine level before and 3 hours after capsules' administration. For the 14-hour sub-study, additional blood samples were obtained at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 hours, and participants received standardized lunch and dinner that were the same in the two periods.
Measurements were obtained before, and 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0 hours after intervention, in the following order: systolic blood pressure; VAS for energy, sleepiness, and nausea; and binary data for not-energetic, sleepy, and nauseated. Levels of energy, sleepiness, and nausea were self-measured on a 100 mm VAS anchored by word descriptors at each end (not at all, very). Caffeine levels were blindly measured by a locally-validated, modified high performance liquid chromatography assay . The assay has a linear range of 0.05 to 20 μg/ml and an inter-run coefficient of variation and bias of ≤6.0% and ≤7%, respectively. Caffeine was stable in plasma (≥98%) for at least 12 weeks at -20°C. Plasma samples of each participant were stored in polypropylene tubes at -20°C, and analyzed together within 6 weeks.
Primary outcomes were 4-hour-area-under-the-curve (AUC4) of systolic blood pressure and VAS scores on self-measured energy, sleepiness, and nausea level in an analysis that was adjusted for baseline (analysis of covariance, ANCOVA). Secondary outcomes were binary measurements of subjective outcomes and placebo effect on caffeine pharmacokinetics. There were no changes to study outcomes after study commencement.
The study planned to recruit 90 subjects in each cross-over study, based on an expected standardized mean difference of placebo effect on continuous subjective outcome of 0.36, type I error of 0.05, type II error of 0.1, paired design, and 10% dropout rate.
The randomization schedule was generated by one of the authors (MMH) using a program available on-line http://www.randomization.com. Group assignment was concealed before randomization from participants and study coordinators who enrolled them. Interventions were assigned to participants by two of the investigators (MMH and EAG).
Study coordinators who collected data were blinded to study design and participants' assignments. Caffeine levels were determined by one of the authors (SA) who was blinded to study design and participants' assignment. Participants were deceived as to the true aim of the study and to their assignment.
Because of positive skew, the AUC4 values for sleepiness and nausea levels were analyzed after natural logarithmic transformation then back transformed, so that the difference between the groups is expressed as geometric means ratio. The ANCOVA model included group and subjects nested within groups (as appropriate), period, intervention, and baseline value. Mean percentage of time participants reported being not-energetic, sleepy, or nauseated was evaluated by the t test. Analyses were conducted by one author (MMH) with SPSS for Windows software (release 16.0.0, 2007. SPSS Inc., Chicago, ILL, USA) and SAS for Windows software (version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). 2-tailed p values are reported unless indicated otherwise.
Baseline characteristics of study participants.
(N = 83)
(N = 85)
(N = 168)
Age - mean (SD), yr
Sex - no. (%)
Completed education - no. (%)
Caffeine consumption - no. (%)
Occupational Status - no. (%)
Professional, technical, managerial
Agricultural, fishery related
Race or ethnic group - no. (%)
Caffeine level - mean (SD), μg/ml
Energy level - mean (SD), mm‡
Sleepiness level - mean (SD), mm‡
Nausea level - mean (SD), mm‡
Systolic blood pressure - mean (SD), mm Hg
Placebo effect on subjective endpoints
Drug, placebo, placebo+interaction, and total effects on systolic blood pressure, energy, sleepiness, and nausea levels.
20.8 [3.8 to 37.8]
P = 0.02
16.6 [4.1 to 29.0]
P = 0.01
8.4 [-4.2 to 21.0]
P = 0.19
29.5 [11.9 to 47.1]
P = 0.001
0.49 [0.30 to 0.91]
P = 0.005
0.58 [0.39 to 0.86]
P = 0.007
0.69 [0.49 to 0.97]
P = 0.03
0.37 [0.22 to 0.64]
P < 0.0001
1.59 [1.00 to 2.52]
P = 0.05
1.43 [0.91 to 2.27]
P = 0.12
1.04 [0.74 to 1.47]
P = 0.82
1.46 [0.91 to 2.34]
P = 0.12
Systolic blood pressure
28.4 [20.5 to 36.4]
P < 0.0001
1.2 [-3.0 to 5.4]
P = 0.57
-0.2 [-4.6 to 4.1]
P = 0.91
29.9 [22.3 to 37.6]
P < 0.0001
Drug, placebo, placebo+interaction, and total effects on self-classification as not-energetic, sleepy, and nauseated.
-6.3 [-15.4 to 2.8]
P = 0.09
-7.9 [-14.5 to -1.3]
P = 0.01
-2.4 [-7.8 to 3.0]
P = 0.19
-8.6 [-17.5 to -1.7]
P = 0.03
-12.9 [-23.1 to -2.6]
P = 0.007
-7.9 [-16.4 to 0.0]
P = 0.03
-3.1 [-10.4 to 4.1]
P = 0.19
-16.0 [-26.2 to -5.8]
P = 0.001
-2.1 [-8.1 to 3.8]
P = 0.24
-3.4 [-8.8 to 1.9]
P = 0.10
1.2 [-3.8 to 6.3]
P = 0.32
-0.9 [-7.3 to 5.5]
P = 0.39
The placebo and drug effects were comparable in size on the three subjective endpoints (Tables 2 & 3). Head to head comparison of the ANCOVA-adjusted means of the placebo and drug effects, using t test did not show a significant difference (p = 0.66 to 0.75).
Interaction between drug and placebo effects
As shown in Table 2, the placebo effect was larger than the placebo+interaction effect on energy and sleepiness levels, and the combination of drug and placebo effects was larger than the total effect. Further, while the placebo effect was significant on binary endpoints, the placebo+interaction effect was not (Table 3). We also estimated the drug+interaction effect by comparing receiving caffeine described as caffeine to receiving placebo described as caffeine, using ANCOVA. The drug+interaction effect was not significant on energy level 11.3 [CI, -4.3 to 27.0] mm*hr, p = 0.15) and of borderline significance on sleepiness level (geometric mean ratio 0.56 [CI, 0.32 to 1.00), p = 0.05). The data combined strongly suggest the presence of a negative interaction between caffeine drug and placebo effects.
Placebo effect on objective outcomes
Pharmacokinetics of caffeine when described as caffeine or placebo.
Described as Caffeine*
Described as Placebo*
[0.35 to 4.31] P = 0.02
[1.62 to 9.23]
P = 0.008
[-0.25 to 0.37]
P = 0.70
[-0.33 to 0.77]
P = 0.42
[0.12 to 0.68]
p = 0.007
[1.00 to 1.07]
P = 0.05
[1.02 to 1.11]
P = 0.004
[0.94 to 1.06]
P = 0.99
[1.02 to 1.12]
P = 0.01
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks‡
P = 0.02
P = 0.006
P = 0.61
P = 0.46
P = 0.007
Our study design allowed dissecting total caffeine effect into its components: drug, placebo, and interaction effects. It was argued that if a placebo effect exists it would be of negligible importance . We found that caffeine drug and placebo effects were similar in size, consistent with a recent analysis of 37 trials in which patients were randomized to no treatment, placebo, or active intervention, that found the relative contributions of spontaneous improvement and of placebo to that of active interventions, 24% and 20%, respectively ; and the observation that patients' belief  and preference  regarding treatment assignment were clinically important; and suggesting the worth of investing more time and effort on maximizing placebo benefits in clinical practice. The observed placebo effect size may explain why generic drug formulations that pass rigorous bioequivalence studies are seen as less potent (not more potent) than their more expensive branded counterparts [30, 31].
The placebo effect was larger when measured using placebo (described as caffeine or as placebo) compared to when measured using caffeine (described as caffeine or as placebo), the combination of placebo and drug effects was larger than total effect, and the combination of drug and interaction effects was smaller than drug effect. Although these differences were not statistically significant, together they suggest that caffeine drug and placebo effects are less than additive. In previous studies that used a balanced placebo design, caffeine placebo  and alcohol placebo  effects were also more readily seen using placebo than using the active substance. Further, a neuro-imaging study showed that alcohol intoxication and expectancy have opposite effects on neuronal activation . The possibility that there may be an interaction between placebo and drug effects has important implications. The difference between drug and placebo arms in clinical trials may represent not only drug pharmacological effect but also an interaction effect and thus may underestimate (if effects are less than additive) or overestimate (if effects are more than additive) pharmacological drug effect. The possibility of less than additive effects may explain the clinically trivial effect of antidepressants as deduced from clinical trials .
Converging evidence suggests that different mechanisms may underlie different placebo effects, for example, opioid pathways underlie placebo analgesia and dopaminergic pathways underlie placebo effect on movement disorders [7, 33]. We tested a priori hypothesis that placebo effect may influence drug bioavailability. We found no effect on the rate of caffeine absorption but significant and unexpected effect on caffeine terminal half-life, and as a result, caffeine AUC (about 7% increase). In addition to providing evidence for placebo effect on objective endpoints, this observation presents a novel mechanism of placebo effect that deserves further studies, and suggests the importance of blinding in bioequivalence studies that compare generic to brand drug formulations and in clinical trials with objective endpoints.
Study limitations include intervention's administration by an undeceived investigator which may have reduced the placebo effect. Further, the balanced placebo design assumes that instructions fully control participants' beliefs regarding their assignment, which we did not verify; and is prone to experimental subordination bias , which can inflate the placebo response. However, the absence of a physician-patient relationship and of placebo effect on nausea, and the different sizes of the placebo effect in the two arms of the study suggest that the effect of such bias would be minimal.
In this large randomized, cross-over balanced placebo design study, using caffeine as a model drug, we found that: 1) a significant placebo effect could be measured on continuous and binary scales, 2) the placebo effect is similar in size to the drug effect, 3) drug and placebo effects may be less than additive, and 4) the placebo effect may be due in part to modulation of drug metabolism.
The study was funded by a grant from The King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to MMH (ARP-26-45). KACST had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Special thanks to the participants of the study for their dedication and contribution to research and to the staff of the Center for Clinical Studies and Empirical Ethics.
- Tilburt JC, Emanuel EJ, Kaptchuk TJ, Curlin FA, Miller FG: Prescribing placebo treatments: Results of national survey of US internists and rheumatologists. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1983-10.1136/bmj.a1938.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med. 2001, 344: 1594-1602. 10.1056/NEJM200105243442106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment. J Intern Med. 2004, 256: 91-100. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01355.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moerman DE, Jonas WB: Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response. Ann Intern Med. 2002, 136: 471-476.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fillingim RB, Price DD: What is controlled for in placebo-controlled trials?. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005, 80: 1119-1121. 10.4065/80.9.1119.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spiegel D, Harrington A: What is the placebo worth? The doctor-patient relationship is a crucial part of its value. BMJ. 2008, 336: 967-968. 10.1136/bmj.39535.344201.BE.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Oken BS: Placebo effects: clinical aspects and neurobiology. Brain. 2008, 131: 2812-2823. 10.1093/brain/awn116.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Miller FG, Wendler D, Swartzman LC: Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLoS Med. 2005, 2: e262-10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kienle GS, Kiene H: The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 1311-1318. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00203-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barfod TS: Placebos in medicine: Placebo use is well known, placebo effect is not. BMJ. 2005, 330: 45-10.1136/bmj.330.7481.45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- McPherson K: Do patients' preferences matter? Yes, but to what extent is unclear. BMJ. 2008, 337: a2034-10.1136/bmj.a2034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Craen AJ, Kaptchuk TJ, Tijssen JG, Kleijnen J: Placebos and placebo effects in medicine: historical overview. J R Soc Med. 1999, 92: 511-515.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lotshaw SC, Bradley JR, Brooks LR: Illustrating caffeine's pharmacological and expectancy effects utilizing a balanced placebo design. J Drug Educ. 1996, 26: 13-24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gundersen H, Specht K, Grüner R, Ersland L, Hugdahl K: Separating the effects of alcohol and expectancy on brain activation: an fMRI working memory study. Neuroimage. 2008, 42: 1587-1596. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.037.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cole-Harding S, Michels VJ: Does expectancy affect alcohol absorption?. Addict Behav. 2007, 32: 194-198. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.03.042.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kelemen WL, Kaighobadi F: Expectancy and pharmacology influence the subjective effects of nicotine in a balanced-placebo design. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007, 15: 93-101. 10.1037/1064-12220.127.116.11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Green MW, Taylor MA, Elliman NA, Rhodes O: Placebo expectancy effects in the relationship between glucose and cognition. Br J Nutr. 2001, 86: 173-179. 10.1079/BJN2001398.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pohl J, Frohnau G, Kerner W, Fehm-Wolfsdorf G: Symptom awareness is affected by the subjects' expectations during insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care. 1997, 20: 796-802. 10.2337/diacare.20.5.796.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Price DD: Assessing placebo effects without placebo groups: an untapped possibility?. Pain. 2001, 90: 201-203. 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00265-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sayette MA, Breslin FC, Wilson GT, Rosenblum GD: An evaluation of the balanced placebo design in alcohol administration research. Addict Behav. 1994, 19: 333-342. 10.1016/0306-4603(94)90034-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kirsch I, Moore TJ, Scoboria A, Nicholls SS: The emperor's new drugs: An analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treatment. 2002, 5: 23-http://alphachoices.com/repository/assets/pdf/EmperorsNewDrugs.pdf View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Waring DR: The antidepressant debate and the balanced placebo trial design: an ethical analysis. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2008, 31: 453-462. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.09.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krogsbøll LT, Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009, 9: 1-10.1186/1471-2288-9-1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Mort JR, Kruse HR: Timing of blood pressure measurement related to caffeine consumption. Ann Pharmacother. 2008, 42: 105-110.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Juliano LM, Griffiths RR: A critical review of caffeine withdrawal: empirical validation of symptoms and signs, incidence, severity, and associated features. Psychopharmacology. 2004, 176: 1-29. 10.1007/s00213-004-2000-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dickert N, Grady C: What's the price of a research subject? Approaches to payment for research participation. N Engl J Med. 1999, 341: 198-203. 10.1056/NEJM199907153410312.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kamimori GH, Karyekar CS, Otterstetter R, Cox DS, Balkin TJ, Belenky GL, Eddington ND: The rate of absorption and relative bioavailability of caffeine administered in chewing gum versus capsules to normal healthy volunteers. Int J Pharm. 2002, 234: 159-167. 10.1016/S0378-5173(01)00958-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McRae C, Cherin E, Yamazaki TG, Diem G, Vo AH, Russell D, Ellgring JH, Fahn S, Greene P, Dillon S, Winfield H, Bjugstad KB, Freed CR: Effects of perceived treatment on quality of life and medical outcomes in a double-blind placebo surgery trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004, 61: 412-420. 10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.412.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Preference Collaborative Review Group: Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1864-10.1136/bmj.a1864.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Waber RL, Shiv B, Carmon Z, Ariely D: Commercial features of placebo and therapeutic efficacy. JAMA. 2008, 299: 1016-1017. 10.1001/jama.299.9.1016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Branthwaite A, Cooper P: Analgesic effects of branding in treatment of headaches. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981, 282: 1576-1578. 10.1136/bmj.282.6276.1576.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schneider R, Grüner M, Heiland A, Keller M, Kujanová Z, Peper M, Riegl M, Schmidt S, Volz P, Walach H: Effects of expectation and caffeine on arousal, well-being, and reaction time. Int J Behav Med. 2006, 13: 330-339. 10.1207/s15327558ijbm1304_8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cavanna AE, Strigaro G, Monaco F: Brain mechanisms underlying the placebo effect in neurological disorders. Funct Neurol. 2007, 22: 89-94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.