This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Related letter  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Ethics  • Psychiatry, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

Jon-Kar Zubieta, MD, PhD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

We appreciate the commentary by Dr Miller regarding the use of deception in placebo research. The recent study by Scott and collaborators¹ was designed to avoid deceptive statements while still obtaining clinically relevant data on the neurobiology of placebo effects. The design used was developed after extensive consultation and input from the investigational review board at our institution and the ethics specialists at the board. It consisted of the use of both active and inactive drug administrations in a parallel design (subjects could receive one or the other, but not both). The informed consent specifically described that the subjects could receive either an inactive or active drug. Furthermore, the adverse effects described in the consent form were those corresponding to the active drug. Perhaps the point of confusion resides on the phrasing used in page 222 of the article, in the "Experimental Design" subsection . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Placebo and Nocebo Effects Are Defined by Opposite Opioid and Dopaminergic Responses
David J. Scott, Christian S. Stohler, Christine M. Egnatuk, Heng Wang, Robert A. Koeppe, and Jon-Kar Zubieta
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(2):220-231.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Deceptive Research
Franklin G. Miller
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(10):1225-1226.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT