Table 1. Study characteristics for all included articles. Authors Year Sample size nocebo group Sample size control group Mean age (SD) Stimulat. type Learn. metho d Results synthesis where applicable Number of condition ing trials (N/C) Ris k of Bias scor e (034) PAIN 1 Colagiuri, Quinn, et al 2015 37 42 20.3 (4.0) Electrical CC+V S 32 (16/16) 3 2 Colagiuri & Quinn 2018 20 20 20.2 (4.0) Electrical CC+V S 32 (16/16) 5 3 Colagiuri, Park, et al. 2021 20 + 20 21 + 20 20.7 (3.6) Electrical CC+V S Lengthier learning condition treated and analyzed as a separate study arm 32 (16/16) 3 4 Colloca, Petrovic, et al. 2010 23 + 23 n/a 22.8 (3.4) Electrical CC+V S Four vs. of one learning sessions averaged together 20 (10/10) or 80 (40/40) 3 5 Colloca, Sigaudo, et al 2008 42 VS & 45 CC+VS n/a 22.3 (2.4) Electrical CC+V S & VS Three pain intensities averaged across VS and CC+VS conditions and analyzed as two separate study arms 24 (12/12) 3 Corsi & Colloca 2017 46 n/a 27.4 (1.1) Thermal CC+V S 12 (6/6) 3 7 Egorova, Benedetti, et al 2020 24 n/a n/a Thermal CC+V S 48 (24/24) 5 8 Feldhaus, Horing, et al. 2021 624 n/a 24.6 (3.6) Thermal CC+V S 16 (8/8) 3 9 Freeman, Yu, et al. 2015 24 n/a 21 to 49 Thermal CC+V S 18 (9/9) 5 10 Geuter & Büchel 2013 20 n/a 26.4 Thermal CC+V S 24 (12/12) 3 11 Kong, Gollub, et al. 2008 13 n/a 26.3 (3.6) Thermal CC+V S 48 (24/24) 5 12 Pazzaglia, Testani, et al. 2016 9 + 9 n/a 29 (5.0) Laser CC+V S &VS VS condition treated and analyzed as a separate study arm 60 (30/30) 5
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw