This systematic review was performed to investigate the ethical justification, methodological quality, validity and safety of placebo controls in randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials.Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a surgical procedure to a placebo. "Surgical procedure" was defined as a medical procedure involving an incision with instruments. Placebo was defined as a blinded sham operation involving no change to the structural anatomy and without an expectable physiological response in the target body compartment.Ten randomized placebo-controlled controlled surgical trials were included, all of them published in high-ranking medical journals (mean impact factor: 20.1). Eight of 10 failed to show statistical superiority of the experimental intervention. Serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.06, P = 0.46). None of the trials had a high risk of bias in any domain. The ethical justification for the use of a placebo control remained unclear in 2 trials.Placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible and provide high-quality data on efficacy of surgical treatments. The surgical placebo entails a considerable risk for study participants. Consequently, a placebo should be used only if justified by the clinical question and by methodological necessity. Based on the current evidence, a pragmatic proposal for the use of placebo controls in future randomized controlled surgical trials is made.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms.
DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered.
RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration.
CONCLUSIONS: The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.
Double-blind, sham-controlled neurosurgical trials for neurodegenerative disorders are debated as an ethical dilemma, particularly regarding subjects randomized to the sham surgery group with general anesthesia.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to examine the safety of sham surgeries in Parkinson's disease (PD) clinical trials through complications related to the procedure.
METHODS:
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Rates and odds ratios (OR) were compared using random effects analysis.
RESULTS:
Seven studies, all randomized, double-blind, sham surgery-controlled trials, with 309 patients with PD, were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed: 141 patients in sham groups and 168 patients in the experimental arms of gene or cell therapy trials. Sham subjects had lower rates of gastrointestinal, positioning, incision-site, respiratory (hypoxic or hypercapnic respiratory failure), cardiovascular, thromboembolism, postoperative cognitive decline, skull fracture, and intracranial or spinal complications when compared with active treatment subjects. Sham subjects, however, had a higher rate of perioperative respiratory infections, such as pneumonia or sinusitis. Further, sham subjects were less likely to experience postoperative cognitive decline (OR, 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.47), intracranial or spinal complications (OR, 0.10; 95% CI.: 0.01-0.75), total major morbidity (OR, 0.30; 95% CI.: 0.19-0.47), or overall complications (OR, 0.59; 95% CI.: 0.47-0.75) when compared with patients receiving experimental therapy.
