Karin Meissner
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Karin Meissner.
JAMA Internal Medicine | 2013
Karin Meissner; Margrit Fässler; Gerta Rücker; Jos Kleijnen; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Antonius Schneider; Gerd Antes; Klaus Linde
IMPORTANCE When analyzing results of randomized clinical trials, the treatment with the greatest specific effect compared with its placebo control is considered to be the most effective one. Although systematic variations of improvements in placebo control groups would have important implications for the interpretation of placebo-controlled trials, the knowledge base on the subject is weak. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether different types of placebo treatments are associated with different responses using the studies of migraine prophylaxis for this analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We searched relevant sources through February 2012 and contacted the authors to identify randomized clinical trials on the prophylaxis of migraine with an observation period of at least 8 weeks after randomization that compared an experimental treatment with a placebo control group. We calculated pooled random-effects estimates according to the type of placebo for the proportions of treatment response. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. In a network meta-analysis, direct and indirect comparisons within and across trials were combined. Additional analyses were performed for continuous outcomes. EXPOSURE Active migraine treatment and the placebo control conditions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportion of treatment responders, defined as having an attack frequency reduction of at least 50%. Other available outcomes in order of preference included a reduction of 50% or greater in migraine days, the number of headache days, or headache score or a significant improvement as assessed by the patients or their physicians. RESULTS Of the 102 eligible trials, 23 could not be included in the meta-analyses owing to insufficient data. Sham acupuncture (proportion of responders, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.30-0.47]) and sham surgery (0.58 [0.37-0.77]) were associated with a more pronounced reduction of migraine frequency than oral pharmacological placebos (0.22 [0.17-0.28]) and were the only significant predictors of response in placebo groups in multivariable analyses (P = .005 and P = .001, respectively). Network meta-analysis confirmed that more patients reported response in sham acupuncture groups than in oral pharmacological placebo groups (odds ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.30-2.72]). Corresponding analyses for continuous outcomes showed similar findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Sham acupuncture and sham surgery are associated with higher responder ratios than oral pharmacological placebos. Clinicians who treat patients with migraine should be aware that a relevant part of the overall effect they observe in practice might be due to nonspecific effects and that the size of such effects might differ between treatment modalities.
BMC Medicine | 2010
Klaus Linde; Karin Niemann; Antonius Schneider; Karin Meissner
BackgroundWhile several recent large randomized trials found clinically relevant effects of acupuncture over no treatment or routine care, blinded trials comparing acupuncture to sham interventions often reported only minor or no differences. This raises the question whether (sham) acupuncture is associated with particularly potent nonspecific effects. We aimed to investigate the size of nonspecific effects associated with acupuncture interventions.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials and reference lists were searched up to April 2010 to identify randomized trials of acupuncture for any condition, including both sham and no acupuncture control groups. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Pooled standardized mean differences were calculated using a random effects model with the inverse variance method.ResultsThirty-seven trials with a total of 5754 patients met the inclusion criteria. The included studies varied strongly regarding patients, interventions, outcome measures, methodological quality and effect sizes reported. Among the 32 trials reporting a continuous outcome measure, the random effects standardized mean difference between sham acupuncture and no acupuncture groups was -0.45 (95% confidence interval, -0.57, -0.34; I2 = 54%; Eggers test for funnel plot asymmetry, P = 0.25). Trials with larger effects of sham over no acupuncture reported smaller effects of acupuncture over sham intervention than trials with smaller nonspecific effects (β = -0.39, P = 0.029).ConclusionsSham acupuncture interventions are often associated with moderately large nonspecific effects which could make it difficult to detect small additional specific effects. Compared to inert placebo interventions, effects associated with sham acupuncture might be larger, which would have considerable implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials.
The Journal of Neuroscience | 2011
Karin Meissner; Ulrike Bingel; Luana Colloca; Tor D. Wager; Alison Watson; Magne Arve Flaten
There is accumulating evidence from different methodological approaches that the placebo effect is a neurobiological phenomenon. Behavioral, psychophysiological, and neuroimaging results have largely contributed to accepting the placebo response as real. A major aspect of recent and future advances in placebo research is to demonstrate linkages between behavior, brain, and bodily responses. This article provides an overview of the processes involved in the formation of placebo responses by combining research findings from behavioral, psychophysiological, and neuroimaging methods. The integration of these different methodological approaches is a key objective, motivating our scientific pursuits toward a placebo research that can inform and guide important future scientific knowledge.
Annals of Family Medicine | 2015
Klaus Linde; Levente Kriston; Gerta Rücker; Susanne Jamil; Isabelle Schumann; Karin Meissner; Kirsten Sigterman; Antonius Schneider
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the primary care setting, and whether there are differences between substance classes regarding efficacy and acceptability. METHODS We conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. Randomized trials in depressed adults treated by primary care physicians were included in the review. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Main outcome measures were response and study discontinuation due to adverse effects. RESULTS A total of 66 studies with 15,161 patients met the inclusion criteria. In network meta-analysis, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI; venlafaxine), a low-dose serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI; trazodone) and hypericum extracts were found to be significantly superior to placebo, with estimated odds ratios between 1.69 and 2.03. There were no statistically significant differences between these drug classes. Reversible inhibitors of monoaminoxidase A (rMAO-As) and hypericum extracts were associated with significantly fewer dropouts because of adverse effects compared with TCAs, SSRIs, the SNRI, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (NRI), and noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant agents (NaSSAs). CONCLUSIONS Compared with other drugs, TCAs and SSRIs have the most solid evidence base for being effective in the primary care setting, but the effect size compared with placebo is relatively small. Further agents (hypericum, rMAO-As, SNRI, NRI, NaSSAs, SARI) showed some positive results, but limitations of the currently available evidence makes a clear recommendation on their place in clinical practice difficult.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B | 2011
Klaus Linde; Margrit Fässler; Karin Meissner
This article reviews the role of placebo interventions and placebo effects in clinical practice. We first describe the relevance of different perspectives among scientists, physicians and patients on what is considered a placebo intervention in clinical practice. We then summarize how placebo effects have been investigated in randomized controlled trials under the questionable premise that such effects are produced by placebo interventions. We further discuss why a shift of focus from the placebo intervention to the overall therapeutic context is necessary and what research methods can be used for the clinical investigation of the relevance of context effects. In the last part of the manuscript, we discuss why placebo or context effects are seen as positive in clinical practice when they are associated with active treatments, while placebo interventions pose major ethical and professional problems and have to be avoided.
Annals of Family Medicine | 2015
Klaus Linde; Kirsten Sigterman; Levente Kriston; Gerta Rücker; Susanne Jamil; Karin Meissner; Antonius Schneider
PURPOSE We performed a systematic review of the currently available evidence on whether psychological treatments are effective for treating depressed primary care patients in comparison with usual care or placebo, taking the type of therapy and its delivery mode into account. METHODS Randomized controlled trials comparing a psychological treatment with a usual care or a placebo control in adult, depressed, primary care patients were identified by searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. At least 2 reviewers extracted information from included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using posttreatment depression scores as outcome. RESULTS A total of 30 studies with 5,159 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control, the effect (standardized mean difference) at completion of treatment was −0.30 (95% CI, −0.48 to −0.13) for face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), −0.14 (−0.40 to 0.12) for face-to-face problem-solving therapy, −0.24 (−0.47 to −0.02) for face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy, −0.28 (−0.44 to −0.12) for other face-to-face psychological interventions, −0.43 (−0.62 to −0.24) for remote therapist-led CBT, −0.56 (−1.57 to 0.45) for remote therapist-led problem-solving therapy, −0.40 (−0.69 to −0.11) for guided self-help CBT, and −0.27 (−0.44 to −0.10) for no or minimal contact CBT. CONCLUSIONS There is evidence that psychological treatments are effective in depressed primary care patients. For CBT approaches, substantial evidence suggests that interventions that are less resource intensive might have effects similar to more intense treatments.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B | 2011
Karin Meissner; Niko Kohls; Luana Colloca
The field of placebo research has made considerable progress in the last years and it has become a major focus of interest. We know now that the placebo effect is a real neurobiological phenomenon and that the brains ‘inner pharmacy’ is a critical determinant for the occurrence of psychobiological and behavioural changes relevant to healing processes and well-being. However, harnessing the advantages of placebo effects in healthcare is still a challenge. The first part of the theme issue summarizes and discusses the various kinds of placebo mechanisms across medical fields, thereby not only focusing on two main explanatory models—expectation and conditioning theory—but also taking into account empathy and social learning, emotion and motivation, spirituality and the healing ritual. The second part of the issue focuses on questions related to transferring knowledge from placebo research into clinical practice and discusses implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials, for the therapeutic settings in daily patient care, and for future translational placebo research.
Family Practice | 2012
Karin Meissner; Lisa Höfner; Margrit Fässler; Klaus Linde
AIM To collect data on the use of placebo interventions by GPs in Germany. METHODS A questionnaire was mailed to 400 randomly selected GPs in Bavaria. Non-responders were reminded by telephone after 4 weeks and were given a second copy of the questionnaire after a further 3 weeks. RESULTS In all, 208 completed questionnaires were returned. The majority of GPs (88%) have used a placebo at least once in their practice; 45% have used pure placebos, such as saline injections and sugar pills, at least once last year; the median frequency of use was 5 [interquartile range (IQR), 2-10]. The use of impure placebos during the past year was more common: 76% of GPs have used impure placebos, i.e. medical interventions that have pharmacological or physical activity but have no intrinsic effect (e.g. pharmacological or physical action) on the patients disease or its symptoms, with a median frequency of 20 times per year (IQR, 10-50). The main reason for the use of placebo was a possible psychological effect, followed by the expectation of patients to receive a treatment. For the majority of GPs placebo interventions were ethically justified if they were used for a possible psychological effect. CONCLUSIONS Placebo interventions are a widely accepted part of medical treatment in German general practices and are used primarily for their psychological effects. Impure placebos are used much more frequently than pure placebos.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B | 2011
Karin Meissner
For many subjectively experienced outcomes, such as pain and depression, rather large placebo effects have been reported. However, there is increasing evidence that placebo interventions also affect end-organ functions regulated by the autonomic nervous system (ANS). After discussing three psychological models for autonomic placebo effects, this article provides an anatomical framework of the autonomic system and then critically reviews the relevant placebo studies in the field, thereby focusing on gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and pulmonary functions. The findings indicate that several autonomic organ functions can indeed be altered by verbal suggestions delivered during placebo and nocebo interventions. In addition, three experimental studies provide evidence for organ-specific effects, in agreement with the current knowledge on the central control of the ANS. It is suggested that the placebo effects on autonomic organ functions are best explained by the model of ‘implicit affordance’, which assumes that placebo effects are dependent on ‘lived experience’ rather than on the conscious representation of expected outcomes. Nevertheless, more studies will be needed to further elucidate psychological and neurobiological pathways involved in autonomic placebo effects.
BMJ Open | 2015
Wayne B. Jonas; Cindy Crawford; Luana Colloca; Ted J. Kaptchuk; Bruce Moseley; Franklin G. Miller; Levente Kriston; Klaus Linde; Karin Meissner
Objectives To assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015. Study selection We included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison. Data extraction and analysis Three authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups. Results 55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p<0.00001; I2=67%). The SMD for surgery versus sham surgery was non-significant for pain-related conditions (n=15, SMD=0.13, p=0.08), marginally significant for studies on weight loss (n=10, SMD=0.52, p=0.05) and significant for gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) studies (n=5, SMD=0.65, p<0.001) and for other conditions (n=8, SMD=0.44, p=0.004). Mean improvement in sham groups relative to active treatment was larger in pain-related conditions (78%) and obesity (71%) than in GERD (57%) and other conditions (57%), and was smaller in classical-surgery trials (21%) than in endoscopic trials (73%) and those using percutaneous procedures (64%). Conclusions The non-specific effects of surgery and other invasive procedures are generally large. Particularly in the field of pain-related conditions, more evidence from randomised placebo-controlled trials is needed to avoid continuation of ineffective treatments.