ArticleEpidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating the Feasibility of Using Historical Placebo Control in Osteoarthritis Trials.
Article in Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy, yet recruitment and retention remain challenging, particularly when placebo arms are required. Using historical placebo data may reduce the need for contemporaneous placebo groups, but comparability between historical and real-time placebo responses is uncertain. This study assessed the feasibility of replacing a placebo control group with a historical placebo arm in osteoarthritis (OA) RCTs using several matching approaches.
methodsData from three published knee OA RCTs (2009, 2013, 2017) were analyzed. The study followed three steps: (1) development of matching techniques using the 2009 and 2013 trials, (2) validation in the 2017 trial, and (3) post hoc analyses comparing placebo responses across trials. Methods included direct covariate adjustment, exact and nearest-neighbor matching, and propensity score matching based on baseline characteristics (age, sex, BMI, OA duration, baseline pain). The main outcome was change in 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) pain.
resultsInitial attempts showed moderate to good success in adjusting historical placebo response on the VAS using various adjustment methods. However, in the validation process, a significant discrepancy was observed between real placebo VAS changes data and historical placebo VAS changes data, and various matching techniques failed to sufficiently reduce this discrepancy. In the post hoc analysis, despite the application of advanced matching techniques, substantial variability in VAS placebo responses persisted across trials. Even among placebo patients with highly similar baseline characteristics, the VAS changes over time differed significantly between studies.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that replacing a real placebo group with a historical placebo in osteoarthritis RCTs is hardly feasible. These results underscore the complexity of placebo effects in osteoarthritis trials and the limitations of historical control data in this context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.