Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Traditional and Innovative Experimental and Clinical Trial Designs and Their Advantages and Pitfalls

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Placebo

Part of the book series: Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology ((HEP,volume 225))

Abstract

Many study designs and design variants have been developed in the past to either overcome or enhance drug–placebo differences in clinical trials or to identify and characterize placebo responders in experimental studies. They share many commonalities as well as differences that are discussed here: the role of deception and ethical restrictions, habituation effects and the control of the natural course of disease, assay sensitivity testing and effective blinding, acceptability and motivation of patients and volunteers, and the development of individualized medicine. These are fostered by two opposite strategies: utilizing the beneficial aspects of the placebo response—and avoiding its negative counterpart, the nocebo effect—in medical routine for the benefit of patients, and minimizing—by controlling—the negative aspects of the placebo effect during drug development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amanzio M, Pollo A, Maggi G et al (2001) Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids. Pain 90:205–215

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aslaksen PM, Flaten MA (2008) The roles of physiological and subjective stress in the effectiveness of a placebo on experimentally induced pain. Psychosom Med 70:811–818

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aslaksen PM, Myrbakk IN, Høifødt RS et al (2007) The effect of experimenter gender on autonomic and subjective responses to pain stimuli. Pain 129:260–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baer L, Ivanova A (2013) When should the sequential parallel comparison design be used in clinical trials? Clin Invest 3:823–833

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti F, Maggi G, Lopiano L et al (2003) Open versus hidden medical treatments: the patient’s knowledge about a therapy affects the therapy outcome. Prevention Treatment 6(1). http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pre/6/1/1a.html. Accessed 28 Jan 2014

  • Benedetti F, Carlino E, Pollo A (2011) Hidden administration of drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90:651–661

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bingel U, Wanigasekera V, Wiech K et al (2011) The effect of treatment expectation on drug efficacy: imaging the analgesic benefit of the opioid remifentanil. Sci Transl Med 3:70ra14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer J, Yong P (2009) How well does blinding work in randomized controlled trials?: a counterpoint. Clin Pharmacol Ther 85:463–465

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boutron I, Estellat C, Guittet L et al (2006) Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review. PLoS Med 3:e425

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C et al (2007) Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med 4:e61

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bridge JA, Birmaher B, Iyengar S et al (2009) Placebo response in randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for pediatric major depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 166:42–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colloca L, Benedetti F (2006) How prior experience shapes placebo analgesia. Pain 124:126–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colloca L, Benedetti F (2009) Placebo analgesia induced by social observational learning. Pain 144:28–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colloca L, Lopiano L, Lanotte M et al (2004) Overt versus covert treatment for pain, anxiety, and Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol 3:679–684

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino RB (2009) The delayed-start study design. N Engl J Med 361:1304–1306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Allegri M, Pokhrel S, Becher H et al (2008) Step-wedge cluster-randomised community-based trials: an application to the study of the impact of community health insurance. Health Res Policy Syst 6:10

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • de la Fuente-Fernández R (2012) The powerful pre-treatment effect: placebo responses in restless legs syndrome trials. Eur J Neurol 19:1305–1310

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desai JR, Bowen EA, Danielson MM, Allam RR et al (2013) Creation and implementation of a historical controls database from randomized clinical trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20:e162–e168

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Diener HC, Dowson AJ, Ferrari M et al (1999) Unbalanced randomization influences placebo response: scientific versus ethical issues around the use of placebo in migraine trials. Cephalalgia 19:699–700

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn AG, Mandl KD, Coiera E et al (2013) The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children. PLoS ONE 8:e84951

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Edward SJ, Stevens AJ, Braunholtz DA et al (2005) The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: a comparison of inert and active placebo controls. World J Surg 29:610–614

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ehni HJ, Wiesing U (2008) International ethical regulations on placebo-use in clinical trials: a comparative analysis. Bioethics 22:64–74

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elsenbruch S, Kotsis V, Benson S et al (2012) Neural mechanisms mediating the effects of expectation in visceral placebo analgesia: an fMRI study in healthy placebo responders and nonresponders. Pain 153:382–390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Enck P, Vinson B, Malfertheiner P et al (2009) Placebo effects in functional dyspepsia – reanalysis of trial data. Neurogastroenterol Motil 21:370–377

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Enck P, Klosterhalfen S, Zipfel S (2011a) Novel study designs to investigate the placebo response. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:90

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Enck P, Klosterhalfen S, Weimer K et al (2011b) The placebo response in clinical trials: more questions than answers. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:1889–1895

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Enck P, Grundy D, Klosterhalfen S (2012a) A novel placebo-controlled clinical study design without ethical concerns – the free choice paradigm. Med Hypotheses 79:880–882

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Enck P, Horing B, Weimer K et al (2012b) Placebo responses and placebo effects in functional bowel disorders. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24:1–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Enck P, Bingel U, Schedlowski M et al (2013) The placebo response in medicine: minimize, maximize or personalize? Nat Rev Drug Discov 12:191–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Estellat C, Ravaud P (2012) Lack of head-to-head trials and fair control arms: randomized controlled trials of biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Intern Med 172:237–244

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans KR, Sills T, Wunderlich GR et al (2004) Worsening of depressive symptoms prior to randomization in clinical trials: a possible screen for placebo responders? J Psychiatr Res 38:437–444

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fava M, Evins AE, Dorer DJ et al (2003) The problem of the placebo response in clinical trials for psychiatric disorders: culprits, possible remedies, and a novel study design approach. Psychother Psychosom 72:115–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorillo CD, Tobler PN, Schultz W (2003) Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science 299:1898–1902

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gracely RH, Dubner R, Wolskee PJ et al (1983) Placebo and naloxone can alter post-surgical pain by separate mechanisms. Nature 306:264–265

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grelotti DJ, Kaptchuk TJ (2011) Placebo by proxy. BMJ 343:d4345

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hegerl U, Mergl R (2010) The clinical significance of antidepressant treatment effects cannot be derived from placebo-verum response differences. J Psychopharmacol 24:445–448

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Horing B (2013) Placebo effects and their prediction across multiple experimentally induced symptoms: motion sickness, cutaneous heat and cold pain, and rectal distension. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tübingen Medical School, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Horing B, Weimer K, Muth ER et al (2014) Prediction of placebo responses: a systematic review of the literature. Front Psychol (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (2001) Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 344:1594–1602

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (2004) Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment. J Intern Med 256:91–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hróbjartsson A, Forfang E, Haahr MT et al (2007) Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding. Int J Epidemiol 36:654–663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter T, Siess F, Colloca L (2013) Socially induced placebo analgesia: a comparison of a pre-recorded versus live face-to-face observation. Eur J Pain 18:914–922. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00436.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iovieno N, Papakostas GI (2012) Does the presence of an open-label antidepressant treatment period influence study outcome in clinical trials examining augmentation/ combination strategies in treatment partial responders/nonresponders with major depressive disorder? J Clin Psychiatry 73:676–683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova A, Tamura RN (2011) A two-way enriched clinical trial design: combining advantages of placebo lead-in and randomized withdrawal. Stat Methods Med Res. doi:10.1177/0962280211431023

  • Ivanova A, Qaqish B, Schoenfeld DA (2011) Optimality, sample size, and power calculations for the sequential parallel comparison design. Stat Med 30:2793–2803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptchuk TJ, Kelley JM, Deykin A et al (2008) Do “placebo responders” exist? Contemp Clin Trials 29:587–595

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen WL, Kaighobadi F (2007) Expectancy and pharmacology influence the subjective effects of nicotine in a balanced-placebo design. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 15:93–101

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kessner S, Wiech K, Forkmann K et al (2013) The effect of treatment history on therapeutic outcome: an experimental approach. JAMA 173:1468–1469

    Google Scholar 

  • King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F et al (2005) Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 9:1–186, iii–iv

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch I (2000) Are drug and placebo effects in depression additive? Biol Psychiatry 47:733–735

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch I (2005) Placebo psychotherapy: synonym or oxymoron? J Clin Psycholb 61:791–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB et al (2008) Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the food and drug administration. PLoS Med 5:e45

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Krogsbøll LT, Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (2009) Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:1

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz M, Rainville P, Lautenbacher S (2011) Operant conditioning of facial displays of pain. Psychosom Med 73:422–431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lauer MS, D’Agostino RB Sr (2013) The randomized registry trial - the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med 369:1579–1581

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Walker JR, Jakul L, Sexton K (2004) Does elimination of placebo responders in a placebo run-in increase the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials? A meta-analytic evaluation. Depress Anxiety 19:10–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leon AC (2012) Challenges in designing comparative-effectiveness trials for antidepressants. Clin Pharmacol Ther 91:165–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levine JD, Gordon NC, Fields HL (1978) The mechanism of placebo analgesia. Lancet 2:654–657

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis DW, Winner P, Wasiewski W (2005) The placebo responder rate in children and adolescents. Headache 45:232–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lidstone SC, Schulzer M, Dinelle K et al (2010) Effects of expectation on placebo-induced dopamine release in Parkinson disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry 67:857–865

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindström D, Sundberg-Petersson I, Adami J et al (2010) Disappointment and drop-out rate after being allocated to control group in a smoking cessation trial. Contemp Clin Trials 31:22–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lund K, Vase L, Petersen GL et al (2014) Randomised controlled trials may underestimate drug effects: balanced placebo trial design. PLoS ONE 9:e84104

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Machado LA, Kamper SJ, Herbert RD et al (2008) Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J 17:889–904

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mallinckrodt CH, Zhang L, Prucka WR et al (2010) Signal detection and placebo response in schizophrenia: parallels with depression. Psychopharmacol Bull 43:53–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA, Elliott MN et al (1999) The relationship between perceived parental expectations and pediatrician antimicrobial prescribing behavior. Pediatrics 103:711–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin AL, Katz J (2010) Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain. Pain 149:208–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marušić A, Ferenčić SF (2013) Adoption of the double dummy trial design to reduce observer bias in testing treatments. J R Soc Med 106:196–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McRae AD, Weijer C, Binik A et al (2011) When is informed consent required in cluster randomized trials in health research? Trials 12:202

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Metrik J, Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM et al (2009) Effectiveness of a marijuana expectancy manipulation: piloting the balanced-placebo design for marijuana. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 17:217–225

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Miller FG, Wendler D, Swartzman LC (2005) Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLoS Med 2:e262

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moncrieff J, Wessely S, Hardy R (2004) Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD003012

    Google Scholar 

  • Ney PG, Collins C, Spensor C (1986) Double blind: double talk or are there ways to do better research? Med Hypotheses 21:119–126

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Papakostas GI, Fava M (2009) Does the probability of receiving placebo influence clinical trial outcome? A meta-regression of double-blind, randomized clinical trials in MDD. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 19:34–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic P, Kalso E, Petersson KM et al (2002) Placebo and opioid analgesia: imaging a shared neuronal network. Science 295:1737–1740

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pollo A, Torre E, Lopiano L et al (2002) Expectation modulates the response to subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinsonian patients. Neuroreport 13:1383–1386

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prady SL, Burch J, Crouch S et al (2013) Insufficient evidence to determine the impact of patient preferences on clinical outcomes in acupuncture trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 66:308–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quilici S, Chancellor J, Löthgren M et al (2009) Meta-analysis of duloxetine vs. pregabalin and gabapentin in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. BMC Neurol 9:6

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rao S, Lembo AJ, Shiff SJ et al (2012) A 12-week, randomized, controlled trial with a 4-week randomized withdrawal period to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1714–1724

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A et al (2010) Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ 340:c1066

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rief W, Glombiewski JA (2012) The hidden effects of blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trials: an experimental investigation. Pain 153:2473–2477

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rief W, Nestoriuc Y, Weiss S et al (2009) Metaanalysis of the placebo response in antidepressant trials. J Affect Disord 18:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Rief W, Bingel U, Schedlowski M et al (2011) Mechanisms involved in placebo and nocebo responses and implications for drug trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90:722–726

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM (1993) The use of response-adaptive designs in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials 14:471–484

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford BR, Sneed JR, Rosse SP (2009) Does study design influence outcome? Psychother Psychosom 78:172–181

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford BR, Sneed JR, Tandler JM et al (2011) Deconstructing pediatric depression trials: an analysis of the effects of expectancy and therapeutic contact. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 50:782–795

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Saarto T, Wiffen PJ (2007) Antidepressants for neuropathic pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD005454

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid J, Theysohn N, Gaß F et al (2013) Neural mechanisms mediating positive and negative treatment expectations in visceral pain: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study on placebo and nocebo effects in healthy volunteers. Pain 154:2372–2380

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott DJ, Stohler CS, Egnatuk CM et al (2007) Individual differences in reward responding explain placebo-induced expectations and effects. Neuron 55:325–336

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shah E, Triantafyllou K, Hana AA et al (2013) Adverse events appear to unblind clinical trials in irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26:482–488. doi:10.1111/nmo.12289

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinyor M, Levitt AJ, Cheung AH et al (2010) Does inclusion of a placebo arm influence response to active antidepressant treatment in randomized controlled trials? Results from pooled and meta-analyses. J Clin Psychiatry 71:270–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stone DA, Kerr CE, Jacobson E et al (2005) Patient expectations in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. J Eval Clin Pract 11:77–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman AL, Ader R (1992) Classic conditioning and placebo effects in crossover studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 52:372–377

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swider K, Babel P (2013) The effect of the sex of a model on nocebo hyperalgesia induced by social observational learning. Pain 154:1312–1317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vase L, Riley JL, Price DD (2002) A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia. Pain 99:443–452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vögtle E, Barke A, Kröner-Herwig B (2013) Nocebo hyperalgesia induced by social observational learning. Pain 154:1427–1433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Ma Y et al (2003) Expectation enhances the regional brain metabolic and the reinforcing effects of stimulants in cocaine abusers. J Neurosci 23:11461–11468

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vray M, Girault D, Hoog-Labouret N et al (2004) Methodology for small clinical trials. Therapie 59:273–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP et al (2012) The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLoS Med 9:e1001346

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer K, Enck P, Klosterhalfen S (2010) Gender effects in placebo responses. Z Med Psychol 19:146–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer K, Gulewitsch M, Schlarb AA et al (2013a) Placebo effects in children: a review. Pediatr Res 74:96–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer K, Horing B, Stürmer J et al (2013b) Nicotine expectancy differentially affects reaction time in healthy non-smokers and smokers depending on gender. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 21:181–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer K, Horing B, Walentin S et al (2013c) Nicotine stimulus expectancy but not nicotine affects cognitive performance in healthy smokers and non-smokers. Psychosom Med 75:A115

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalley B, Hyland ME (2013) Placebo by proxy: the effect of parents’ beliefs on therapy for children’s temper tantrums. J Behav Med 36:341–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whalley B, Hyland ME, Kirsch I (2008) Consistency of the placebo effect. J Psychosom Res 64:537–541

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woods SW, Gueorguieva RV, Baker CB et al (2005) Control group bias in randomized atypical antipsychotic medication trials for schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:961–970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association (2013) World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelen M (1979) A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 300:1242–1245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Rosenberger WF (2006) Response-adaptive randomization for clinical trials with continuous outcomes. Biometrics 62:562–569

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Supported by a grant from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Katja Weimer & Paul Enck

Authors
  1. Katja Weimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Enck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Enck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neuroscience Department and National Institute of Neuroscience Labs, University of Turin Medical School, Turin, Italy

    Fabrizio Benedetti

  2. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospitals Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

    Paul Enck

  3. Neuroscience Department and National Institute of Neuroscience Labs, University of Turin Medical School, Turin, Italy

    Elisa Frisaldi

  4. Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Immunobiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Manfred Schedlowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weimer, K., Enck, P. (2014). Traditional and Innovative Experimental and Clinical Trial Designs and Their Advantages and Pitfalls. In: Benedetti, F., Enck, P., Frisaldi, E., Schedlowski, M. (eds) Placebo. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, vol 225. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44519-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation