Hubbry Logo
Sham surgerySham surgeryMain
Open search
Sham surgery
Community hub
Sham surgery
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sham surgery
Sham surgery
Sham surgery
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sham surgery (or placebo surgery) is a faked surgical intervention that omits the step thought to be therapeutically necessary.

In clinical trials of surgical interventions, sham surgery is an important scientific control. This is because it isolates the specific effects of the treatment as opposed to the incidental effects caused by anesthesia, the incisional trauma, pre- and postoperative care, and the patient's perception of having had a regular operation. Thus sham surgery serves an analogous purpose to placebo drugs, neutralizing biases such as the placebo effect.

Human research

[edit]

A number of studies done under Institutional Review Board-approved settings have delivered important and surprising results. With the progress in minimally invasive surgery, sham procedures can be more easily performed as the sham incision can be kept small similarly to the incision in the studied procedure.

A review of studies with sham surgery found 53 such studies: in 39 there was improvement with the sham operation and in 27 the sham procedure was as good as the real operation.[1] Sham-controlled interventions have therefore identified interventions that are useless but had been believed by the medical community to be helpful based on studies without the use of sham surgery.[2][3][4][5][6]

Examples

[edit]

Cardiovascular diseases

[edit]

In 1939 Fieschi introduced internal mammary ligation as a procedure to improve blood flow to the heart. Not until a controlled study was done two decades later could it be demonstrated that the procedure was only as effective as the sham surgery.[2][3]

Central nervous system disease

[edit]

In neurosurgery, cell-transplant surgical interventions were offered in many centers in the world for patients with Parkinson disease until sham-controlled experiments involving the drilling of burr holes into the skull demonstrated such interventions to be ineffective and possibly harmful.[4] Subsequently, over 90% of surveyed investigators believed that future neurosurgical interventions (e.g. gene transfer therapies) should be evaluated by sham-controlled studies as these are superior to open-control designs, and have found it unethical to conduct an open-control study because the design is not strong enough to protect against the placebo effect and bias.[4] Kim et al. point out that sham procedures can differ significantly in invasiveness, for instance in neurosurgical experiments the investigator may drill a burr hole to the dura mater only or enter the brain.[4] In March 2013 a sham surgical study of a popular but biologically inexplicable venous balloon angioplasty procedure for multiple sclerosis showed the surgery was no better than placebo.

Orthopedic diseases

[edit]

Moseley and coworkers studied the effect of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee establishing two treatment groups and a sham-operated control group.[5] They found that patients in the treatment group did no better than those in the control group. The fact that all three groups improved equally points to the placebo effect in surgical interventions.

In a 2016 study it was found that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy does not offer any benefit over sham surgery in relieving symptoms of knee locking or catching in patients with degenerative meniscal tears.[6]

A randomised controlled trial was carried out to investigate the effectiveness of shoulder surgery to remove an acromial spur (bony protuberance on x-ray) in patients with shoulder pain. This found that improvement after sham surgery was as great as with real surgery.[7]

A systematic review has identified a number of studies comparing orthopedic surgery to sham surgery. This demonstrates that it is possible to undertake such studies and that the findings are important.[8]

Animal research

[edit]

Sham surgery has been widely used in surgical animal models. Historically, studies in animals also allowed the removal or alteration of an organ; using sham-operated animals as control, deductions could be made about the function of the organ. Sham interventions can also be performed as controls when new surgical procedures are developed.[citation needed]

For instance, a study documenting the effect of ONS (Optical Nerve Section) on Guinea pigs detailed its sham surgery as:[9] "In the case of optic nerve section, a small incision was then made in the dural sheath of the optic nerve to access the nerve fibers, which were teased free and cut. The same procedure was followed for animals undergoing sham surgery, except that the optic nerve was left intact after visualization."[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sham surgery

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sham surgery, also known as surgery, is a simulated surgical intervention that mimics the appearance and experience of a real procedure but omits the steps believed to provide therapeutic benefit, primarily used in randomized controlled trials to control for effects, psychological expectations, and incidental procedural impacts such as and incisions. This approach allows researchers to distinguish genuine surgical efficacy from subjective improvements driven by patient belief in treatment, thereby enhancing the validity of trial outcomes in evaluating surgical interventions. The concept of sham surgery emerged in the mid- amid growing recognition of responses in medical treatments, with one of the earliest applications occurring in 1959–1960 through randomized trials testing internal mammary artery ligation for angina pectoris, where sham procedures revealed no advantage over the actual , leading to its abandonment. These initial studies highlighted the potential for strong effects in , prompting calls for rigorous controls, though adoption remained limited due to logistical and ethical challenges in blinding surgeons and patients. By the late , sham designs gained traction in neurosurgical research, such as trials for fetal cell transplantation in , which demonstrated significant responses but also underscored risks like unnecessary invasiveness. In contemporary , sham surgery has been pivotal in orthopedic and interventional trials, exemplified by a 2002 study on arthroscopic and lavage for , which found no superior pain relief or function compared to sham procedures, influencing guidelines to reduce such surgeries. Similarly, 2009 trials on vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures showed equivalent pain reduction between the procedure and sham injections, challenging its widespread use and emphasizing the role of natural healing and expectation. As of 2025, sham surgery continues to be employed in neurological applications, including phase III trials of therapies for . These examples illustrate sham surgery's value in debunking ineffective procedures while revealing benefits that can inform patient counseling. Ethical debates surrounding sham surgery center on the balance between scientific rigor and , as it involves deliberate and potential risks without direct benefit, yet proponents argue it prevents from unproven surgeries and upholds equipoise in trials. Guidelines from bodies like the stress that acknowledges blinding without revealing sham details, while ongoing discussions advocate for minimizing invasiveness in control arms. Despite controversies, sham-controlled trials continue to shape evidence-based surgical practice, particularly in fields like orthopedics and .

Definition and Purpose

Core Definition

Sham surgery, also known as surgery, is a simulated surgical intervention designed to mimic the sensory and psychological experience of a genuine procedure while omitting the therapeutic components believed to produce the intended clinical benefit. This approach serves as a control in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to distinguish the specific effects of the surgery from nonspecific factors such as patient expectations or the of the operation itself. For instance, in a sham procedure, elements like , skin incisions, and postoperative care may be performed, but the core manipulative step—such as tissue repair or device implantation—is excluded. Unlike pharmacological placebos, which typically involve inert substances like sugar pills with minimal physiological intrusion, sham surgery often entails invasive elements that replicate the risks and sensations of real , such as potential , , or anesthesia-related complications. This distinction arises because true placebos in would involve no intervention at all, whereas sham variants use superficial or partial procedures to maintain blinding for participants and assessors, thereby isolating the placebo response more accurately. The placebo effect in this context encompasses improvements attributable to the patient's belief in the treatment's efficacy, rather than any direct biological action from the sham. The mechanisms underlying the placebo response in sham surgery include psychological expectation, which can trigger changes like endorphin release; natural progression or ; and the physiological stress or conditioning from the procedural environment itself. These factors can lead to measurable clinical improvements in sham groups, sometimes averaging around 10% on standardized scales like the Unified Rating Scale motor subscale, highlighting the need for such controls to validate surgical . The term "sham surgery" emerged in the context of RCTs during the mid-20th century, with early recognition of its role in quantifying effects traced to Henry K. Beecher's 1961 analysis of a 1959 trial comparing actual internal mammary artery ligation to a sham version for relief.

Role in Clinical Trials

Sham surgery plays a pivotal role in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions by serving as a control to isolate the specific therapeutic effects of the procedure from nonspecific influences, such as patient expectations and the psychological impact of undergoing . This control mechanism is essential because nonspecific effects, including the , can account for approximately two-thirds (67%) of the observed benefits in surgical outcomes. By incorporating a sham arm, trials can more accurately assess whether improvements stem from the mechanical or biological aspects of the rather than contextual factors like the ritual of the operating room or postoperative care. Blinding strategies are central to the validity of sham surgery trials, with blinding typically achieved through the use of general to prevent during the procedure, combined with mimicked postoperative elements such as identical incisions, dressings, and rehabilitation protocols to maintain . Surgeon blinding is often infeasible due to the need to perform the active intervention, which introduces potential performance bias; to mitigate this, trials commonly employ independent, blinded assessors who evaluate outcomes without knowledge of group allocation. These approaches help equalize expectancy effects across arms, though maintaining blinding post-procedure remains challenging and is successfully assessed in only a minority of trials. Outcome measurement in sham surgery RCTs relies on validated, objective, and patient-reported instruments to enable rigorous comparison between the sham and real surgery groups, focusing on domains like , function, and . For instance, tools such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for intensity and condition-specific assessments like the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) for joint disorders are frequently used to quantify changes, revealing in many cases that sham procedures yield improvements comparable to active surgery. These measures prioritize subjective yet standardized endpoints, as objective biomarkers are often limited in elective surgeries. Statistical considerations in these trials emphasize intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis to preserve and minimize from dropouts, ensuring all allocated participants are included in the primary analysis regardless of compliance or protocol adherence. When using sham controls to test for the absence of specific effects or noninferiority, equivalence thresholds are defined a priori based on clinically meaningful differences, with power calculations adjusted to detect small effect sizes given the potential for large responses. This framework enhances the interpretability of results, particularly in trials where sham arms demonstrate no inferiority, underscoring the nonspecific contributions to surgical outcomes.

Historical Development

Origins in Medical Research

The concept of sham surgery originated from foundational work on the in during the mid-20th century. A pivotal influence was Henry K. Beecher's 1955 paper, "The Powerful Placebo," published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which analyzed 15 double-blind trials encompassing 1,082 patients across diverse conditions. Beecher reported an average clinical improvement rate of approximately 30% in placebo control groups, attributing this to psychological factors such as patient expectations and the therapeutic ritual, rather than physiological mechanisms. This seminal review established the placebo response as a quantifiable in , prompting researchers to consider inert controls that replicate procedural elements to isolate true treatment effects. Beecher's insights also extended to ethical considerations, influencing early debates on the use of deception in research and the need for safeguards like in studies involving simulated interventions. The transition to sham surgery in clinical trials occurred in the late 1950s and 1960s, initially in experiments for conditions like pectoris. One of the earliest applications was the 1959 double-blind trial by Cobb et al., published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which tested bilateral internal mammary artery ligation—a procedure believed to enhance coronary blood flow and alleviate symptoms. In this study of 17 patients, the sham group underwent skin incisions mimicking the surgical exposure without actual vessel ligation, while the treatment group received the full procedure; both arms showed comparable symptom relief, with roughly 63% of patients in each reporting improvement, highlighting the placebo's role in perceived surgical benefits. This trial marked a formalization of sham controls in surgical research, demonstrating their utility in debunking ineffective procedures and emphasizing the influence of expectation on outcomes in pain-related interventions. Preceding broader surgical adoption, the evolution from pharmacological placebos to procedural simulations gained traction in non-surgical fields by the 1970s, providing methodological precedents. In dentistry, studies began incorporating placebo administration to assess placebo effects on pain and recovery; for example, a 1970 trial examined placebo in oral surgery patients, finding it modulated postoperative swelling and discomfort through anticipated relief, without pharmacological action. Concurrently, acupuncture trials in the West developed sham needling—such as superficial insertions at non-acupoints—as controls starting in the early 1970s, aiming to differentiate specific therapeutic effects from nonspecific procedural cues like touch and ritual. These advancements in dentistry and acupuncture underscored the adaptability of placebo designs to invasive or tactile procedures, informing the ethical and practical framework for sham surgery's integration into rigorous medical evaluation.

Evolution and Key Studies

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, sham surgery gained traction in orthopedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to isolate the specific therapeutic effects of procedures from placebo responses and natural disease progression. This period marked a shift toward more rigorous trial designs in surgical research, particularly for common interventions like joint surgeries. A pivotal study exemplifying this adoption was the 2002 RCT by Moseley et al., involving 180 patients with knee osteoarthritis, which compared arthroscopic debridement, lavage, or placebo (sham) surgery. The trial revealed no clinically meaningful differences in knee pain or function at 24 months between the sham group and active surgery groups, underscoring the substantial placebo component in perceived surgical benefits. In the , sham surgery expanded beyond orthopedics to spinal and cardiac procedures, enabling better evaluation of invasive treatments for chronic conditions. For vertebral interventions, the 2009 multicenter RCT by Buchbinder et al. tested vertebroplasty versus sham in 78 patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures, finding no significant reduction or improvement from the procedure at 3 months or beyond, which challenged its routine use. In , the 2005 blinded RCT by Leon et al. assessed transmyocardial laser against sham in 298 patients with , reporting no differences in episodes or , thus questioning the mechanism and efficacy of the technique. The 2010s brought key advancements in applying sham controls to neurological research, particularly for , where high placebo responses complicated outcome interpretation. Sham deep brain stimulation (DBS) trials highlighted this, with studies showing robust placebo effects; for example, analyses of PD cohorts undergoing sham stimulation post-implantation demonstrated up to 50% symptom improvement attributable to placebo mechanisms, as seen in neuroimaging-linked responses. A representative milestone was the INTREPID study (results presented in 2018, published in 2020), a double-blind RCT of 136 advanced PD patients, where active DBS improved Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor scores by approximately 50% more than sham stimulation at 12 weeks, confirming DBS efficacy while quantifying placebo contributions. These landmark trials collectively influenced clinical research standards, notably through the 2008 CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic interventions by Boutron et al., which recommended explicit reporting of sham procedures, blinding methods, and rationale to improve trial quality and reduce bias in surgical evaluations.

Design and Implementation

Components of Sham Procedures

Sham procedures are constructed to closely replicate the real surgical intervention in all non-therapeutic aspects, ensuring effective blinding of participants, surgeons, and evaluators while maintaining scientific reproducibility across trials. This design minimizes bias from placebo effects and contextual influences, allowing for rigorous assessment of the specific therapeutic elements of the surgery. Key components include standardized preoperative preparation, simulated intraoperative steps, mimicked postoperative care, and integrated safety measures to limit risks without compromising the trial's integrity. Preoperative elements emphasize identical preparation to the active arm, fostering a consistent experience that preserves blinding. This involves equivalent diagnostic assessments, consultations, and protocols to avoid any differential cues. processes are particularly critical, with phrasing that discloses the possibility of sham assignment while emphasizing the trial's scientific value and minimized risks, thereby reducing therapeutic misconception and supporting participant autonomy. For instance, in orthopedic trials, consent forms detail the to sham without revealing procedural specifics to maintain double-blinding. Such enhances by ensuring all preparatory steps are protocolized identically across sites. Intraoperative simulation focuses on replicating the sensory and environmental aspects of the real procedure while omitting therapeutic tissue manipulation to isolate its effects. Common techniques include superficial skin incisions to mimic entry points, such as the 1-cm portals used in sham arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis without joint or lavage. Visual deception is often achieved through the use of s or probes inserted without active intervention; for example, in gastrointestinal trials, an may be advanced into the lumen with a simulated tool like a heater probe held inactive, allowing patients to experience procedural sounds and sensations under . These elements avoid any direct therapeutic action, such as tissue resection or injection, to ensure the sham remains inert while duplicating the operative theater's ritual. Protocols specify exact incision depths and tool manipulations for reproducibility, often documented via video to verify adherence. Postoperative replicates the recovery trajectory to sustain blinding and control for non-specific effects like expectation or attention. This includes comparable wound care, such as identical dressings and suture removal schedules, alongside standardized regimens like equivalent analgesics and monitoring for side effects. Follow-up protocols mirror those of the active group, with scheduled visits, rehabilitation instructions, and outcome assessments timed identically to simulate the full recovery . In sham-controlled Parkinson's trials, for instance, participants received the same counseling and mobility aids as the intervention arm, preventing unblinding through divergent care paths. These measures promote by outlining detailed timelines and interventions in trial manuals. Safety protocols are integral to sham design, prioritizing risk minimization through limited invasiveness while upholding ethical standards under oversight. Techniques such as restricting incision depth to superficial levels and using local rather than general where feasible reduce complications like or anesthesia-related events. For example, in neurological sham procedures, burr holes are drilled only partially to avoid intracranial risks. A 2023 of Parkinson's sham trials (7 studies, 141 sham patients) reported lower overall complication rates in sham groups compared to experimental arms (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75), with no deaths and reduced major morbidity (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.47), confirming low risks well below acceptable thresholds in controlled settings.

Technical Variations

Sham surgery techniques are customized to replicate the procedural, sensory, and environmental elements of the target intervention while excluding therapeutic actions, ensuring blinding in clinical trials. These variations depend on the surgical approach, body system, and required fidelity to the real procedure's components, such as incisions and instrumentation. In minimally invasive contexts, sham procedures often utilize needles, scopes, or small portals to simulate access without deeper intervention. For example, in arthroscopic trials, the sham involves standard portal incisions and arthroscope insertion for diagnostic viewing only, accompanied by external manipulation of tools against the to mimic operative sounds and sensations, but without tissue resection. This contrasts with sham adaptations for open , which typically limit the procedure to superficial incisions—such as three 1-cm cuts on the —without violating underlying tissues or using internal instruments. Such approaches maintain procedural realism while minimizing risks associated with invasive exploration. Anesthesia selections in sham surgery are aligned with the actual procedure to match experiences, including perioperative sensations and recovery profiles. General is employed for shams mimicking complex or laparoscopic interventions, as in trials involving cranial burr holes or intra-abdominal scoping, to replicate full and postoperative effects. Conversely, or regional suffices for less invasive shams, such as those with superficial incisions, avoiding unnecessary systemic exposure while preserving sensory cues like incision discomfort. Device-based sham variations are prevalent in neuromodulation trials, where inactive or non-functional elements substitute for active components. These include implants with disconnected power sources or stimulators delivering no output, ensuring no therapeutic occurs; for instance, in spinal cord stimulation studies, sham devices provide subtherapeutic low-intensity pulses (e.g., 0.4 mA) to simulate sensation without . Similarly, percutaneous nerve stimulators may use sham modes with absent electrical delivery, validated to prevent unblinding through patient feedback on perceived effects. Sham procedures vary in duration and complexity to parallel the target surgery's timeline and steps, enhancing credibility. Brief shams, such as 10-minute skin incisions, suit simple controls in orthopedic trials, while extended simulations—lasting hours in the operating room with full and monitoring—accommodate multi-step procedures like those in laparoscopic or neurosurgical contexts, including matched operative times and environmental noises.

Ethical and Regulatory Aspects

Ethical Principles

The ethical principles underlying sham surgery in clinical research are rooted in the foundational tenets of , particularly and non-maleficence. requires that participants provide , but sham procedures introduce challenges because full disclosure of the sham nature could undermine the trial's blinding and scientific validity. To address this, consent processes emphasize explaining the randomization to sham or active treatment without specifying individual assignments, while ensuring participants understand the potential for receiving a non-therapeutic intervention. Non-maleficence demands minimizing from the unnecessary aspects of sham surgery, such as incisions or risks, which must be justified as no greater than minimal and outweighed by the trial's potential benefits to future patients. Deception in sham surgery, inherent to maintaining blinding, is ethically justified only under strict conditions, including the risk of therapeutic misconception—where participants conflate with personalized therapy and overestimate personal benefits—and the requirement of . Equipoise ensures genuine uncertainty about the intervention's efficacy, allowing institutional review boards to approve trials only when the sham's s are proportionate to the scientific necessity of distinguishing true effects from responses. Without equipoise, deception becomes unjustifiable, as it erodes trust and exposes participants to avoidable harm. The principle of beneficence supports sham surgery by promoting the greater good through rigorous evaluation that prevents the adoption of ineffective procedures, thereby avoiding widespread patient harm and reducing healthcare expenditures. For instance, identifying ineffective surgeries can avert billions in annual U.S. costs associated with unnecessary interventions, as estimated by analyses of wasteful medical spending. This aligns with ethical shifts in research design since the late , where controls became more accepted to enhance . For vulnerable populations, such as those with or desperation for treatment options, additional protections are essential to safeguard autonomy and prevent exploitation. These include enhanced safeguards like independent advocates, third-party reviews, and exclusion criteria to ensure participants are not unduly influenced by their condition's severity. Such measures mitigate the heightened risks of in groups facing limited alternatives.

Regulatory Guidelines

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) oversee sham surgery trials to ensure ethical compliance, requiring demonstration of —genuine uncertainty in the medical community about the intervention's superiority over alternatives—and a thorough risk-benefit that weighs procedural risks against potential scientific gains. This must confirm that risks from the sham procedure do not exceed those of standard care and are justified by the trial's importance to knowledge advancement. International regulatory bodies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the have incorporated guidelines emphasizing sham arms in surgical device and advanced trials since the , with recent updates in 2023 and 2025, mandating justification for their use to control for effects and biases. The FDA requires sponsors to provide a rationale in protocols for sham procedures, particularly in device and trials, ensuring they align with ethical standards when effective alternatives exist. Similarly, EMA guidelines for investigational advanced medicinal products and treatments endorse sham comparators where feasible, provided risks are minimized and scientific validity is upheld. Consent protocols for sham surgery s employ layered disclosure to mitigate , presenting information in stages—such as general trial overview before specifics on and potential sham assignment—to preserve blinding without deception. Participants must receive comprehensive details on risks, including those from the sham procedure, and alternatives, with post-trial debriefing to reveal assignments and address any lingering concerns. IRBs review these protocols to ensure voluntariness and comprehension, often requiring simplified language for complex elements like blinding. Reporting mandates require sham surgery trials to be registered on platforms like , explicitly detailing the sham arm in study records to enhance transparency and . Publications must include full descriptions of sham procedures, their rationale, and outcomes to allow scrutiny and prevent underreporting of control group experiences, as updated in the CONSORT 2025 guidelines. These requirements, aligned with FDAAA 801, apply to applicable trials and promote accountability in surgical research.

Applications in Human Research

Cardiovascular Applications

Sham surgery in cardiovascular research has primarily been used to isolate the therapeutic effects of invasive procedures like (PCI) from placebo responses in patients with stable . The seminal Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation to Determine the Individual Response to Coronary Intervention (ORBITA) trial, conducted in 2017, provided robust evidence through its double-blind, sham-controlled design involving 200 patients with single-vessel and exertional despite optimal medical therapy. In the sham arm of ORBITA, the procedure mimicked PCI by involving local anesthesia at the access site (radial or femoral artery), insertion of a diagnostic catheter, and engagement of the coronary ostium under fluoroscopy, but omitted guidewire advancement, balloon inflation, or stent placement to avoid any revascularization. Patients received conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl to preserve blinding, ensuring they believed they underwent full PCI while operators and assessors remained unaware of group assignment. This approach effectively controlled for psychological and procedural expectations without introducing therapeutic intervention. The trial's outcomes revealed substantial symptom relief in the sham group, with improvements in exercise tolerance (mean increment of approximately 12 seconds on testing) and reductions in angina frequency that were statistically indistinguishable from the PCI group. These findings underscore a potent effect, likely mediated by endorphin release and central pain modulation pathways activated by the ritual of invasive care, thereby demonstrating that perceived benefits of PCI in stable often stem from non-specific factors rather than restored blood flow. This has contributed to evidence supporting reduced overuse of elective PCI, as up to 30% of such procedures may be driven by responses rather than objective ischemia relief. Subsequent validation in the 2023 ORBITA-2 trial, which excluded antianginal medications, confirmed these patterns, with the sham group showing a mean daily angina frequency of 0.7 episodes and treadmill exercise time of 641.4 seconds, further highlighting placebo-driven mechanisms. Long-term, these sham-controlled insights have shaped guidelines for elective revascularization since the 2012 ACCF/AHA stable ischemic heart disease update, reinforced in the 2021 version, which prioritizes optimal medical therapy over routine PCI for symptom management in stable coronary disease unless refractory to drugs, aiming to curb unnecessary interventions and associated risks like periprocedural complications. As of 2025, no major new sham-controlled cardiovascular trials have altered these recommendations significantly.

Neurological Applications

Sham surgery has been employed in clinical trials for neurological disorders to distinguish therapeutic effects from placebo responses in interventions targeting brain and spinal cord conditions, such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, treatment-resistant depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and epilepsy. These procedures mimic surgical steps without delivering the active treatment, allowing blinded assessments of efficacy in high-stakes neurosurgical contexts where placebo effects can be pronounced due to patient expectations and the invasive nature of the interventions. A landmark study in involved sham surgery in a randomized controlled trial of fetal nigral transplantation, where 40 patients underwent bilateral putaminal implantation of embryonic neurons or sham surgery consisting of burr hole drilling without cell injection. The sham group showed no significant improvement in Unified Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores off medication at 12 months (mean change -0.4 points), highlighting the absence of clinical benefit from the procedure itself and underscoring the role of in self-reported outcomes, as sham patients initially reported perceived improvements upon re-evaluation. This trial demonstrated that while younger patients (<60 years) in the active group achieved up to 28% improvement in UPDRS motor scores, the sham arm revealed limited placebo-driven motor gains, prompting ethical debates on invasive controls. In essential tremor, a 2016 double-blind randomized trial of MRI-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy used sham sonication (transducer firing without energy delivery) in 20 patients, resulting in negligible hand tremor improvement (0.1% at 3 months) compared to 47% in the active group, confirming that observed benefits were not attributable to and establishing the need for sham controls in tremor procedures. Techniques in sham surgery for neurological applications vary by procedure type. For deep brain stimulation (DBS) in conditions like Parkinson's disease and essential tremor, sham involves surgical implantation of electrodes into targets such as the subthalamic nucleus or ventral intermediate thalamus, followed by blinded programming to inactive settings without electrical stimulation, enabling double-blinding during follow-up assessments. In epilepsy surgery trials, sham lesioning simulates stereotactic procedures like amygdalohippocampectomy by performing burr holes and electrode placement without creating the ablative lesion, preserving blinding while minimizing risk. These methods ensure patients and evaluators remain unaware of group assignment, isolating the specific intervention's effect. Unique challenges in neurological sham surgery include verifying the absence of active intervention through neuroimaging, such as postoperative MRI to confirm no lesion formation or unintended stimulation artifacts in DBS cases, which is critical for maintaining trial integrity. Neuropsychiatric conditions exhibit high placebo response rates, reaching up to 70% of the treatment effect in mood disorders like depression, necessitating robust sham designs to account for expectancy-driven improvements in subjective symptoms such as motor function or mood. These rates, observed across double-blind trials, complicate power calculations and highlight the need for larger sample sizes in neurology research. Clinical implications of sham surgery trials have led to reevaluation of established neurosurgical treatments for OCD, such as cingulotomy. Post-2000s sham-controlled DBS studies targeting the ventral capsule/ventral striatum or nucleus accumbens showed response rates of 14-20% in sham phases, prompting scrutiny of lesion procedures like cingulotomy, where open-label historical data suggested 30-45% improvement but lacked placebo controls; this has shifted focus toward reversible DBS over irreversible lesions to better delineate true efficacy and reduce overtreatment risks.

Orthopedic Applications

Sham surgery has been prominently applied in orthopedic research to evaluate the efficacy of procedures for knee osteoarthritis, a common degenerative joint condition affecting millions worldwide. A landmark randomized controlled trial published in 2002 demonstrated that arthroscopic debridement for knee osteoarthritis provided no greater relief in pain or improvement in function compared to a sham procedure over 24 months of follow-up. In this study, 180 patients were assigned to one of three groups: arthroscopic debridement, arthroscopic lavage, or sham surgery, with the sham involving three small skin incisions, simulated manipulation without actual scope insertion, and saline splashing to mimic operative sounds under local anesthesia. The absence of functional differences highlighted the role of placebo effects in perceived benefits from such interventions. Similar sham designs have been employed in trials for other knee procedures, such as partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tears. For meniscus tears, a 2013 multicenter trial involving 146 patients with degenerative medial meniscus tears found no benefit in knee pain or function from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to sham surgery, where diagnostic arthroscopy was performed without meniscectomy. Sham methods typically include saline injection into the joint to simulate lavage or scope insertion without tissue manipulation or repair, ensuring blinding while minimizing actual intervention. Key findings from these studies attribute observed improvements in sham groups to placebo effects, potentially linked to perceived reduction in joint effusion through simulated lavage or incision-related expectations, with up to 91% of lavage benefits deemed placebo-driven in meta-analyses of knee osteoarthritis trials. This evidence influenced clinical guidelines in the 2010s, such as the 2017 BMJ international panel recommendation strongly against routine arthroscopy for degenerative knee disease, including osteoarthritis and meniscus tears, due to lack of meaningful benefits over non-surgical management. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons similarly advised against arthroscopic lavage and debridement for knee osteoarthritis in its 2013 guidelines, updated in 2021 for non-arthroplasty management, maintaining the recommendation against these procedures. These shifts have broader implications, with annual U.S. costs for knee arthroscopies estimated at $3-4 billion; reducing unnecessary procedures based on sham trial evidence could yield savings exceeding $1 billion yearly by promoting conservative therapies.

Use in Animal Models

Methodological Approaches

In preclinical animal studies, sham surgery is adapted to the anatomy and physiology of species such as rodents and nonhuman primates to simulate human procedures while minimizing invasiveness. For rodents, like rats and mice, designs typically involve small incisions—such as mid-thigh exposure for sciatic nerve models or T8-T12 skin incisions with laminectomy for spinal cord injury simulations—closed with sutures or clips, omitting the therapeutic intervention to control for surgical trauma effects. In nonhuman primates, such as macaques, sham procedures scale incisions to body size, for instance, in knee osteoarthritis models where a skin incision mimics the procedure without joint opening or meniscectomy, or in vertical sleeve gastrectomy studies with abdominal incisions but no gastric resection, providing closer translational relevance to human outcomes due to anatomical similarities. Blinding in animal sham surgery studies ensures objectivity, particularly through masked behavioral assessments to evaluate outcomes like pain-avoidance or motor function without observer bias. Trained evaluators, unaware of treatment allocation, score video-recorded behaviors in operant conflict tests or neurological exams, reducing subjective influences that could confound results in preclinical settings. This approach contrasts with veterinary contexts involving owned animals, where blinding prevents handler expectations from affecting assessments, though preclinical research prioritizes standardized, lab-based protocols. Sham surgery in animal models offers practical advantages over human studies, including faster experimental iteration and lower costs, enabling extensive dose-response testing of surgical techniques. Rodent models, with short generation times and affordable housing, facilitate rapid cycles of procedure refinement and outcome measurement, while primates allow preliminary validation in larger animals at reduced expense compared to clinical trials. These benefits support iterative optimization, such as varying incision depths or recovery protocols, to isolate true therapeutic effects from procedural artifacts. Welfare standards in sham surgery adhere to the 3Rs principles—replacement, reduction, and refinement—under Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) oversight to ensure ethical conduct. Replacement considers non-animal alternatives where feasible, reduction minimizes animal numbers via power analyses, and refinement employs anesthesia (e.g., isoflurane), analgesics (e.g., buprenorphine), and aseptic techniques to limit pain and distress from incisions. IACUC protocols mandate detailed procedural descriptions, humane endpoints, and post-operative monitoring to align with regulations like the Animal Welfare Act.

Specific Examples

In neurological models of stroke, sham craniotomy is commonly employed in rat studies using the middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) technique to control for procedural effects. For instance, in a rat MCAO model, sham surgery involves anesthesia, neck incision, and separation of the carotid arteries without ligation or occlusion, allowing assessment of handling and stress impacts on recovery. Sham-operated rats demonstrate full functional recovery, maintaining normal neurobehavioral scores (e.g., 0 on a 0-3 scale indicating no deficits) and motor performance (e.g., balance beam scores of 1.00 ± 0.00) across 21 days post-procedure, in contrast to ischemic groups showing persistent impairments. This highlights how perioperative handling and reduced stress contribute to recovery, with studies from the mid-2000s onward emphasizing that such non-specific factors can account for substantial behavioral improvements independent of therapeutic interventions. In orthopedic models of arthritis, sham procedures simulate joint interventions without actual tissue manipulation, as seen in sheep studies of knee osteoarthritis induced by meniscectomy. A representative example involves sham surgery where the knee joint is exposed via medial parapatellar arthrotomy but no meniscal damage occurs, serving as a control for surgical trauma. In such models, at 12 weeks post-procedure, sham-operated sheep exhibit mild cartilage changes, such as slight softening and fibrillation in the medial tibial plateau, compared to untreated controls. These changes suggest responses to the sham incision and handling, mirroring non-specific effects observed in joint trials. Cardiovascular models frequently utilize sham coronary ligation in mice to evaluate regenerative therapies for myocardial infarction (MI). Since around 2010, this approach has involved thoracotomy and exposure of the left anterior descending artery without ligation, isolating the effects of ischemia. For example, in bone marrow-derived cell therapy studies, sham-ligated mice maintain normal cardiac function and ejection fraction (typically >60%) over weeks, while MI groups show significant systolic dysfunction; this control validates therapy-induced improvements in regeneration, such as enhanced cardiomyocyte proliferation. Such models have been pivotal in testing stem cell and growth factor interventions, confirming that sham procedures yield baseline cardiac stability without regenerative artifacts. Outcomes from these sham surgery applications in animal models have validated key human research findings, particularly the pronounced placebo response in across . In models of neural , sham surgeries elicit robust pain-avoidance behaviors, with up to 70% of sham rats refusing to cross noxious mechanical probes in operant tests—comparable to injured groups—indicating a persistent effect lasting weeks, without altering sensory thresholds like von Frey responses. This parallels human sham procedures for , where meta-analyses report large reductions (e.g., standardized mean difference of -0.73) from sham interventions alone, underscoring conserved mechanisms of expectation and procedural conditioning in models from to humans.

Controversies and Limitations

Ethical Debates

Proponents of sham surgery in clinical trials argue that some level of is ethically justifiable to maintain scientific rigor, as partial disclosure or incomplete blinding can introduce significant from effects and participant expectations, which are particularly pronounced in surgical contexts. For instance, reviews from 2014 emphasize that sham controls enable double-blinding, distinguishing true therapeutic effects from psychological influences and thereby protecting future patients from ineffective procedures. Opponents counter that sham surgery inherently violates patient trust through , even when disclosed in processes, as it undermines the therapeutic and exposes participants to unnecessary risks without personal benefit. This perspective highlights cases of psychological harm, including distress from realizing the procedure was non-therapeutic, with reports indicating such effects in a of participants across trials. Equity concerns further complicate the debate, as sham trials may disproportionately burden vulnerable populations, such as those with cognitive impairments or in economically disadvantaged groups, who face heightened risks of exploitation due to limited access to alternative care and potential coercion in consent. In low-resource settings, these disparities amplify the ethical tension, as participants from marginalized communities might enroll for access to any medical attention, raising questions about fair distribution of research burdens. A notable case illustrating these tensions is the 1999 proposed sham-controlled trial for arthroscopic knee surgery for , which sparked significant backlash for subjecting patients to invasive placebos without guaranteed benefit, prompting Ruth Macklin's critique in the New England Journal of Medicine on the ethical breach of non-maleficence. This controversy contributed to evolving discussions, culminating in 2007 consensus statements and patient perspective studies that urged stricter safeguards, such as enhanced protocols and risk minimization, to balance needs with participant protections. Recent analyses continue to underscore these ethical challenges. A 2023 systematic review of 172 randomized sham-controlled trials found that gastrointestinal conditions were the most common indication, with 38.4% involving deep and general in 28.5%, raising concerns about inherent risks and difficulties, particularly as only 8.7% achieved full blinding of participants, personnel, and assessors. In cardiovascular research, 2023 discussions around trials like ORBITA (comparing to sham) highlighted debates on minimizing procedural risks through less invasive shams (e.g., venous access) while ensuring robust to address patient misconceptions about potential benefits.

Scientific Challenges

One major scientific challenge in sham surgery trials is the feasibility of maintaining effective blinding, particularly given surgeons' equipoise difficulties and the risk of unblinding. Surgeons often face equipoise challenges due to personal biases and specialty convictions favoring active interventions, which can hinder trial and impartiality in delivering sham procedures. In complex procedures, unblinding rates can be significant, with crossover rates ranging from 8% to 36% leading to compromised blinding in some cases, as seen in orthopedic sham trials where methodological deficiencies allowed participants to discern treatments. These issues undermine the double-blind design essential for isolating true therapeutic effects from placebo responses. Placebo variability further complicates interpretation of sham surgery results, as factors such as optimism and expectations can substantially influence outcomes, often necessitating analyses to account for heterogeneity. In sham trials, placebo responses show large effects on subjective outcomes like pain relief (pooled effect size 0.64), driven by psychological factors including , while objective measures exhibit smaller or non-significant effects ( 0.11). High heterogeneity (I² = 79%) in these responses requires analyses by outcome type and characteristics to discern reliable patterns, yet many trials fail to incorporate such analyses, limiting evidential clarity. Generalizability of sham surgery findings to real-world practice is limited by trial exclusions that select healthier or less complex patients, reducing applicability to broader populations. Surgical trials, including those with sham controls, often exclude comorbidities or advanced cases to ensure safety and protocol adherence, resulting in participants unrepresentative of typical clinical cohorts. This means sham-derived efficacy estimates may not translate effectively outside controlled settings, as real-world patients exhibit greater variability in health status and adherence. Finally, the high and logistical feasibility of sham surgery trials restrict their widespread . These trials demand substantial resources for procedures, extended monitoring, and specialized setups to mimic active interventions, significantly escalating expenses compared to standard surgical studies. For instance, slow recruitment (often 1-2 patients per month) and the need for dedicated facilities prolong timelines and amplify costs, with funding split between commercial and non-commercial sources but still posing barriers for less invasive procedures. Such demands contribute to early terminations in some trials, curtailing the evidence base for surgical efficacy.

Future Directions

Emerging Innovations

Recent advancements in sham surgery focus on integrating non-invasive technologies to improve placebo effects while minimizing risks associated with traditional invasive procedures. (VR) simulations have emerged as a promising tool for pre-operative preparation, allowing patients to experience simulated surgical environments that enhance placebo responses without requiring physical intervention. A (protocol published 2021, results 2024) of self-administered skills-based VR (EaseVRx) for chronic demonstrated superior reductions in pain intensity and interference compared to sham VR (neutral 2D content), with more than half of participants achieving at least a 2-point reduction sustained at 12 months post-treatment. In elective surgical settings, immersive VR has reduced intraoperative pain and anxiety during procedures like central venous port placements compared to no VR, though specific sham comparators vary across studies. Advanced biomaterials are enabling the development of dissolvable or minimally invasive sham constructs that mimic surgical outcomes without long-term implantation. These materials, including polylactic-co-glycolic acid () combined with β-tricalcium phosphate, have been tested in critical-size calvarial defect models, where they promoted bone formation comparable to traditional sham surgery controls, with bone area fractions around 10-20% at 6 weeks. Dissolvable scaffolds dissolve over time, reducing the need for secondary removal procedures and addressing ethical concerns in orthopedic trials. Nanotechnology-based approaches further support non-invasive mimics by facilitating targeted, temporary tissue interactions; for example, acoustically activatable liposomes allow stimulus-responsive release of inert agents to simulate surgical effects in preclinical models. Such innovations prioritize and controlled degradation, as evidenced in 2023 studies on resorbable membranes for guided bone regeneration. Artificial intelligence (AI) and are enhancing blinding protocols in sham surgery trials by predicting outcomes and detecting biases that could unmask interventions. Sham-AI models, designed with near-zero sensitivity but matched specificity to real AI systems, serve as controls to evaluate diagnostic performance without introducing operational bias. In a 2025 validation study using a of over 16,000 CT angiography exams, these models maintained double-blind integrity in aneurysm detection trials, with standard AI showing a 20.7% improvement in sensitivity (95% CI: 15.8-25.5%) over unassisted readings. algorithms also analyze patient data to optimize sham design, forecasting responses and minimizing detection risks in randomized controlled trials. This approach has been applied in neurosurgical contexts to ensure equitable blinding across arms. Hybrid models combining with aim to personalize enhancement by tailoring inert interventions to genetic profiles that influence response variability. Research indicates that framing sham treatments as genetically matched amplifies effects; a 2023 showed an 11% intensity reduction in the personalized sham group versus 3% in the standard group. analysis of responders reveals genetic markers, such as COMT polymorphisms, that predict higher in sham procedures, enabling customized protocols in trials. This integration, explored in omics-driven clinical designs, supports ethical while controlling for risks, as detailed in 2018 reviews of pharmacogenomics- interactions.

Potential Expansions

Sham surgery holds promise for expansion into , where it could serve as a control in trials evaluating procedures like lymphaticovenous for cancer-related , mimicking surgical steps without therapeutic intervention to isolate effects. In such applications, sham procedures would involve superficial incisions or diagnostic elements without actual vessel connection, enabling blinded assessments of in reducing swelling post-cancer treatment. This approach addresses the high placebo response observed in oncologic interventions, potentially clarifying whether procedures provide benefits beyond expectation. By 2030, sham surgery may integrate more deeply into , particularly for cell-based therapies targeting disorders, where imitation procedures like partial burr holes maintain blinding without full implantation risks. For instance, in trials of neuron transplants for , sham controls have historically helped distinguish therapeutic effects from responses, though future designs may evolve to minimize invasive shams through objective imaging like PET scans. Such expansions would enhance validation of regenerative techniques, ensuring only effective therapies advance to clinical use. Policy recommendations advocate for incorporating sham arms in trials of surgeries with strong placebo components, as outlined in the ASPIRE guidelines, which provide frameworks for designing and conducting placebo-controlled surgical studies to improve scientific rigor. These guidelines emphasize proportionality of risks, transparent , and in mimicking procedures, recommending sham use when necessary to evaluate mechanisms or de-implement ineffective interventions. Recent updates like CONSORT 2025 further support enhanced reporting of placebo controls in trials, indirectly promoting their adoption for high-stakes procedures. Addressing global adoption challenges, particularly underuse in regions like and , could involve targeted programs for researchers and ethicists to build capacity in conducting sham-controlled trials, overcoming barriers such as resource limitations and cultural hesitancy toward designs. While specific programs remain limited as of November 2025, international collaborations, such as those under the World Health Organization's surgical research initiatives, could facilitate . Long-term benefits of wider sham surgery implementation include reductions in surgical overtreatment by identifying procedures with no added value over , as demonstrated in trials like arthroscopic knee surgery for , where sham controls revealed equivalent outcomes to active intervention, leading to guidelines discouraging routine use. This evidence-based approach has prompted de-implementation efforts, potentially curbing unnecessary procedures and associated costs worldwide.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/sham-procedure
  2. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1513/pats.200707-090JK
  3. https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/18/4/736/2924731
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1888585/
  5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/789387
  6. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013259
  7. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0900429
  8. https://www.bluerocktx.com/bluerock-therapeutics-advances-investigational-cell-therapy-bemdaneprocel-for-treating-parkinsons-disease-to-registrational-phase-iii-clinical-trial/
  9. https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/11/703
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1079669/
  11. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/sham-surgery/2012-03
  12. https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(23)00434-4
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5109256/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6700614/
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573801/
  16. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794704
  17. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/2023/03000/blinding_and_sham_control_methods_in_trials_of.6.aspx
  18. https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3253
  19. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/303530
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27499481/
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23217427/
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5273242
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213422021000123
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109705019297
  25. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/77193
  26. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(20)30108-3/fulltext
  27. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5693737/
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37165974/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3654166/
  31. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2662877
  32. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/philosophy/docs/london/London--ShamSurgeryReasonableRisk.pdf
  33. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/sim.2634
  34. https://www.fda.gov/media/172084/download
  35. https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj-2024-081124
  36. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-quality-non-clinical-clinical-requirements-investigational-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-clinical-trials_en.pdf
  37. https://irb.northwestern.edu/resources-guidance/policies-guidance/docs/guidance-for-research-involving-deception-or-incomplete-disclosure---general---1919.pdf
  38. https://www.fda.gov/media/88915/download
  39. https://clinicaltrials.gov/policy/fdaaa-801-final-rule
  40. https://clinicaltrials.gov/policy/reporting-requirements
  41. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32714-9/fulltext
  42. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2310610
  43. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2043150/
  45. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200103083441002
  46. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1600159
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8836606/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878747923006293
  49. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99534-z
  50. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2784479
  51. https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(14)00968-8/fulltext
  52. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1305189
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8808023/
  54. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1982
  55. https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/osteoarthritis-of-the-knee/oak3cpg.pdf
  56. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/knee-arthroscopy-should-this-common-knee-surgery-be-performed-less-often-2020042019507
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6800634/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S106345841601027X
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633018/
  60. https://academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article/43/4/244/981872
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919119302808
  62. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.21.572908v1
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7275810/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5223001/
  65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16315284/
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458412009958
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590911000531
  68. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circresaha.110.229658
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28063914/
  70. https://www.surgjournal.com/article/S0039-6060(14)00786-7/fulltext
  71. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-78
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2930142/
  73. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/enrollment-economically-disadvantaged-participants-clinical-research/2009-01
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10498498/
  75. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/57916/21775_ftp.pdf%3Bsequence=1
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37066793/
  77. https://www.tctmd.com/news/sham-procedures-cv-research-whats-sacrificed-science
  78. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-021-05403-5
  79. https://www.arthroscopyjournal.org/article/S0749-8063(20)30414-X/fulltext
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5154040/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7359942/
  82. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e010194
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11377093/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12041976/
  85. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02887989
  86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40558900/
  87. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c00344
  88. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-025-01990-5
  89. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmaterialsau.3c00013
  90. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryai.240140
  91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390014253_Development_and_Validation_of_a_Sham-AI_Model_for_Intracranial_Aneurysm_Detection_at_CT_Angiography
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11151720/
  93. https://elifesciences.org/articles/84691
  94. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00078
  95. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/omi.2020.0208
  96. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06082349
  97. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-023-07417-7
  98. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2015/0301/p289.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.