Disclosing a potential adverse event (AE) significantly increases the likelihood of such an event occurring.
( In industrial patients, Dr Google primarily generates nocebo effect not any placebo effect.)
Certain kind of adverse events are more prone for this. Erectile Dysfunction (ED) for example.
In the following Pubmed article 96 CV patients on atenolol are divided into three groups.
- GR A are blinded on the drug.
- GR B knew that they were on drug but were nit told about ED.
- GR C are specifically told about this side effect.
After 3 months the incidence of erectile dysfunction was 3.1% in the group A, 15.6% in group B and 31.2% in group C (P<0.01).
All patients reporting ED entered the second phase of the study and were randomised to receive Sildenafil 50mg and placebo in a cross over study. Sildenafil citrate and placebo were equally effective in reversing erectile dysfunction in all but one patient.
Now, Here is my query:
If the doctor informs patients as to the potential risks and negative side effects of a given treatment, the patient is most likely to get it.
If they don’t tell patients the risks, they can be sued for malpractice for violating informed-consent laws.
Dr Ramakanta's Ideas 