Harnessing the power of placebos in movement disorders: Insights from Parkinson's disease in clinical research and practice

The placebo effect alongside the detrimental nocebo and lessebo effects associated with the use of placebos are well‐recognized phenomena. Research conducted in the last two decades has demonstrated that the placebo effect is a measurable health benefit with well‐known neurobiological correlates. In this review, we describe the current knowledge about how to best make use of the placebo effect to improve clinical research and optimize clinical care. We will cover four key topics: (1) setting the stage: historical perspectives on the use of placebos; (2) optimizing the use of placebos in clinical trials; (3) use of placebos in clinical practice; and (4) how can we minimize the ethical risks of using placebos? The adoption of the placebo‐controlled trial as a standard in the therapeutic development reduced the placebo effect to background noise in a therapeutic signal. Strategies to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials have been used to obtain positive efficacy results. In more recent years, new study paradigms encouraged a change in the views on placebos and the placebo effect. Alternative study designs and the development of biomarkers for a placebo response permit a better understanding of the contribution of the placebo effect to the results of interventional studies, without minimizing it. In clinical practice, optimizing the placebo effect (and reducing nocebo effects) has the potential to improve care for our patients, but raises ethical challenges. An enhanced patient‐physician relationship would be central to any evidence‐based intervention used in clinical care to heighten the placebo effect. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society     

How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart.

Methods

Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week.

Results

In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively.

Conclusions

Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.

     

Posttraumatische und postoperative Schultersteife

Die Unfallchirurgie - Von der primären oder idiopathischen ?frozen shoulder“ (Schultersteife) lässt sich die sekundäre Form nach einem Trauma oder einer Operation an der...