Author (Year)	Study Type	Intervention/Contextual Focus	Population	Outcomes and Limitations
Kaptchuk (2002) [116]	Narrative review	Placebo Effect in CAM	General population	Outcomes:
				Discusses how ritualistic and symbolic aspects of alternative medicine can evoke clinically significant placebo responses.
				Limitations:
				Primarily theoretical; lacks empirical data to substantiate claims.
Paterson (2005) [133]	Narrative review	Placebo effect in acupuncture	Acupuncture patients	Outcomes:
				Distinguishes between characteristic and incidental (placebo) effects in acupuncture efficacy.
				Limitations:
				Lacks experimental data, limited generalizability beyond acupuncture.
Linde et al. (2005) [134]	Randomized Controlled Trial	Acupuncture	Migraine patients	Outcomes:
				The possible benefits of acupuncture may be due to factors other than those derived from the needling.
				Limitations:
				Lack of significant difference with control group suggests influence of non-specific factors.
Diener et al. (2006) [135]	RCT	Acupuncture	Migraine patients	Outcomes:
				Treatment outcomes for migraine did not differ significantly between verum acupuncture, sham acupuncture, and standard therapy groups, suggesting a strong influence of contextual factors
				Limitations:
				High dropout rate in the standard therapy group (106 patients) may have affected group comparability.
				Inability to blind participants to standard drug therapy could have influenced patient-reported outcomes.
				The study design did not allow for isolation of specific contextual factors from overall treatment effects.
Fulda et al. (2007) [128]	Pilot study	Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT)	Low back pain patients	Outcomes:
				Positive expectations can influence perceived efficacy, even in placebo treatments.
				Limitations:
				Small sample size limits generalizability; preliminary findings lack statistical power.
				Lack of control groups reduces the ability to isolate the impact of expectations.
Meissner et al. (2013) [130]	Systematic review	Placebo in migraine prophylaxis	Migraine patients	Outcomes:
				Efficacy among placebo treatments in preventing migraine.
				Limitations:
				Heterogeneity of included studies may affect consistency of conclusions.
Calpin et al. (2017) [127]	Comparative retrospective study.	Chronic pain management	Patients with chronic pain	Outcomes:
				Discrepancies in expectations were noted, with significant effects from patient characteristics like age, gender, and sleep quality on expectations. The study highlights the need to align expectations for better outcomes.
				Limitations:
				Small sample of physicians limits generalization.
				Based on descriptive comparisons only.
				Lack of follow-up after consultation.
				Possible misinterpretation of free responses.
Rossettini et al. (2018) [126]	Narrative review.	Placebo/nocebo in MSK care	Patients with musculoskeletal pain	Outcomes:
				Highlights influence of contextual factors on placebo and nocebo effects.
				Limitations:
				Lacks comprehensive analysis of primary data; broad generalizations may limit applicability.
Thomson et al. (2021) [95]	Clinical Commentary	Placebo/Contextual factors	General MSK care	Outcomes:
				Emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in enhancing treatment effects.
				Limitations:
				Lacks original data; primarily theoretical commentary.
Tsutsumi et al. (2023) [136]	Meta-epidemiological study	Contextual effects in general medicine	Data from Cochrane reviews	Outcomes:
				Estimates significant portion of medical treatment results attributable to contextual and placebo effects.
				Limitations:
				Focus on general medicine may limit direct applicability to musculoskeletal care.
Nim et al. (2025) [131]	Systematic review with network meta-analysis	Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) application procedures	Adults with spine pain	Outcomes:
				Most SMT procedures were slightly more effective than other treatments; a general and non-specific SMT approach had the highest probability of achieving the largest effects.
				Limitations:
				Differences between SMT approaches were small and not clinically relevant; evidence was of low to very low certainty due to heterogeneity, bias, and lack of direct comparisons