Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1962; 1(02): 33-37
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1636192
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

An Inspection of our Working Hypotheses in the Study of Pain and other Subjective Responses in Man[*)]

ARBEITSHYPOTHESEN BEI UNTERSUCHUNGEN ÜBER DEN SCHMERZ UND ANDERE SUBJEKTIVE REAKTIONEN DES MENSCHEN
Henry K. Beecher
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 24 October 1961

Publication Date:
17 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

The working hypotheses of primary importance in our laboratory effort over the past 15 years have been set down. These hypotheses have been credited with playing a considerable part in the opening up of a new field in pharmacology: The quantitative study of the effects ;of drugs on the mind. Since this work has been carried out in man, usually sick man, it provides another example of the fundamental importance of the clinic in the advancement of special basic areas in pharmacology and psychology.

Die wichtigsten Arbeitshypothesen für die Laboratoriumsuntersuchungen, die Vortragender während der letzten 15 Jahre durchgeführt hat, werden dargelegt. Diesen Hypothesen wird ein beträchtlicher Anteil eingeräumt an der Erschließung eines neuen Bereichs der Pharmakologie: der quantitativen Erforschung der Wirkung von Arzneimitteln auf die Psyche. Die Ergebnisse wurden im allgemeinen an kranken Menschen gewonnen und zeigen erneut die fundamentale Bedeutung der Klinik für die Grundlagenforschung in der Pharmakologie und Psychologie.

*) Paper presented at the International Seminar on Medical Documentation and Statistics, Oct. 10-28, 1901, Berlin, Germany.


 

  • Bibliography

  • 1 Adrian E. D.. Pain and its problems. I. The physiology of pain. Practitioner, 158: 76-82 1947;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Anliker J. E.. Unpublished work in this laboratory. 1961
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beecher H. K.. Pain in men wounded in battle. Ann. Surg 123: 96-105 1946;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Beecher H. K.. The powerful placebo. J. Amer. med. Ass 159: 1602-1606 1955;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beecher H. K.. Relationship of significance of wound to the pain experienced.. J. Amer. med. Ass. 161 1609-1613 1956 a.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Beecher H. K.. Evidence for increased effectiveness of placebos with increased stress.. Amer. J. Physiol. 187: 163-169 1956; b.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Beecher H. K.. Measurement of Subjective Responses: Quantitative Effects of Drugs.. Oxford University Press; New York: 1959
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Beecher H. K.. Increased stress and effectiveness of’placebos and “active” drugs. Science 132: 91-92 1960;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Beecher H. K.. Surgery as placebo. A quantitative study of bias. J. Amer. .med. Ass 176: 1102-1107 1961;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bishop G. H.. Personal communication. August 6 1956
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cleghorn R. A., Graham B. F., Campbell R. B., Rublee N. K., Elliott F. H., and Saffran M.. Anxiety states: Their response to ACTH and to isotonic saline. Proc. First Clin. ACTH Ponf.. Blakis-ton Co.; Philadelphia: 1950. pp. 561-585.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Dupuytren. In Lescellière F. G.. Histoire de la cicatrisation, de ses modes de formation, et des considérations pathologiques et thérapeutiques qui en découlent.. Castel, Montpellier, France: 1836. p. 29.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Gravenstein J. S., Devloo R. A., and Beecher H. K.. Effect of antitussive agents on experimental and pathological cough in man. J. Appl. Physiol 7: 119-139 1954;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Guthrie G. J.. A treatise on gunshot wounds. Burgess & Hill; London: 1827. p. 3.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Hardy J. D.. Letter of August 30. 1956
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Houde R. W., and Wallenstein S. L.. A method for evaluating analgesics in patients with chronic pain.. Drug Addiction & Narcotics Bull.; Appendix F.: 000-082, 1953
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Keats A. S., and Beecher H. K.. Pain relief with hypnotic doses of barbiturates and a hypothesis. J. Pharmacol 103: 1-13 1950;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Keats A. S., Beecher H. K., and Mosteller F. C.. Measurement of pathological pain in distinction to experimental pain. J. Appl. Physiol 1: 35-44 1950;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lasagna L., and Beecher H. K.. The optimal dose of morphine. J. Amer. med. Ass 150: 230-234 1954;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Marshall H. R.. Pain, Pleasure, and Aesthetics. Macmillan, London: 1894
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Smith G. M., and Beecher H. K.. Amphetamine sulfate and athletic performance. I. Objective effects. J. Amer. med. Ass 170: 542-557 1959;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Smith G. M., and Beecher H. K.. Amphetamine, secobarbital, and athletic performance. II. Subjective evaluations of performances, mood states, and physical states. J. Amer. med. Ass 172: 1502-1514 1900;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Smith G. M., and Beecher H. K.. Amphetamine, secobarbital and athletic performance. III. Quantitative effects on judgment. J. Amer. med. Ass 172: 1023-1629 1960;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Strong G. A.. The psychology of pain. Psychol. Rev 2: 329-347 1895;
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 von Felsinger J. M., Lasagna L., and Beecher H. K.. Drug-induced mood changes in man. 2. Personality and reactions to drugs. J. Amer. med. Ass 157: 1113-1119 1955;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar