Bibliometric Properties of Placebo Literature From the JIPS Database: A Descriptive Study

First dedicated articles about placebo effects have been published in the 1940s, and more than 5,000 articles have been published in scientific organs since. However, the evolution of this research field has rarely been examined. By means of bibliometric analyses we aim to generate research metrics such as the number and types of publications as well as topics, authorship networks, impacts, and future directions.

Bibliometric methods were applied to the Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) database. It comprises around 5,000 scientific articles dedicated to researching placebo effects and mechanisms and is expanded continually through individual curation, making it a prime candidate for investigation. Web scraping was used to obtain complete article information from PubMed and Web of Science. The same information was obtained for addiction research as reference field. Analyses include a general characterization of the database as well as focus points concerning publication types (data vs. non-data articles), high-impact publications and more.

Analyses show that the JIPS database is a comprehensive collection of placebo publications. The development of the field is comparable to that of the comparator field and scientific publication in general. The most frequently used keywords describe populations or study design topics; the most frequent symptoms were pain, depression and anxiety. Data and non-data (e.g., review) papers are related in proportion of about 6:4 in recent decades, indicating a stable degree of productivity. A network of 26 interconnected researchers was identified who published 25 or more articles. Placebo research contributes comparable numbers of publications to high-impact journals as the comparator field. Several additional analyses are performed, with a focus on visualization of various database parameters.

Bibliometric analyses of the JIPS database can be used to answer questions to the field, for example, to get an impression of blind spots and future directions. However, keywords used in indexing and publications themselves are often general and suggest that placebo research may still be considered a subspecialty of superordinate fields, particularly since there are no journals dedicated to placebo research itself. We invite interested colleagues to use this database for further analyses.