ReviewTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2015
MDMA for the treatment of mood disorder: all talk no substance?
Review in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Converging Effects of Different Categories of Antidepressants on the Brain: A Systematic Meta-Analysis of Public Transcriptional Profiling Data from the Hippocampus and Cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Next-Generation MDMA Analogue SDMA: Pharmacological and Metabolic Insights.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2025Article
- Ketamine for Depression: Advances in Clinical Treatment, Rapid Antidepressant Mechanisms of Action, and a Contrast with Serotonergic Psychedelics.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2022Article
- Beyond ecstasy: Alternative entactogens to 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine with potential applications in psychotherapy.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2021Review
- A Review of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-Assisted Psychotherapy.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- (±)-MDMA and its enantiomers: potential therapeutic advantages of R(-)-MDMA.Psychopharmacology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnipolar depression is the third highest contributor to the global burden of disease, yet current pharmacotherapies typically take about 6 weeks to have an effect. A rapid-onset agent is an attractive prospect, not only to alleviate symptoms before first-line antidepressants display therapeutic action, but as a further treatment option in nonresponsive cases. It has been suggested that 3,4-methylene-dioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) could play a part in the treatment of depression, either as a rapid-onset pharmacological agent or as an adjunct to psychotherapy. Whilst these hypotheses are in keeping with the monoamine theory of depression and the principles surrounding psychotherapy, explicit experimental evidence of an antidepressant effect of MDMA has rarely been established.
aimsTo address the hypothesis surrounding MDMA as a rapid-onset antidepressant by examining pharmacological, psychological and behavioural studies. We consider whether this therapy could be safe by looking at the translation of neurotoxicity data from animals to humans.
methodA literature review of the evidence supporting this hypothesis was performed.
conclusionsThe pharmacology of MDMA offers a promising target as a rapid-onset agent and MDMA is currently being investigated for use in psychotherapy in anxiety disorders; translation from these studies for use in depression may be possible. However, experimental evidence and safety analysis are insufficient to confirm or reject this theory at present.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.