Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35022823›Full record

ReviewPsychopharmacology2022

Assessing the risk-benefit profile of classical psychedelics: a clinical review of second-wave psychedelic research.

David Bender, David J Hellerstein

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychopharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David BenderDepartment of Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
David J HellersteinColumbia University Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY, USA. David.hellerstein@nyspi.columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8031-4354
New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleA broad reassessment of the potential benefits of psychedelic drugs has led to the initiation of multiple major clinical trials in an effort to advance their status to become FDA-approved medications, as well as local legislative efforts to legalize or decriminalize their use.

objectivesTo use recently published data to assess potential risks and benefits of psychedelic drugs as therapeutics, as well as to synthesize what is currently known in order to generate fruitful future research directions.

methodsA review of studies conducted since 1991 identified 14 clinical trials of classical psychedelics, including 11 of psilocybin (N = 257 participants), 1 of lysergic acid diethylamide (N = 12 participants), and 2 of ayahuasca (N = 46 participants). Other published studies (e.g., of healthy volunteers, survey studies, case reports, neuroimaging) were also considered for review.

resultsPublished studies since 1991 largely support the hypothesis that small numbers of treatments with psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy can offer significant and sustained alleviation to symptoms of multiple psychiatric conditions. No serious adverse events attributed to psychedelic therapy have been reported. Existing studies have several limitations, including small sample sizes, inherent difficulty in blinding, relatively limited follow-up, and highly screened treatment populations.

conclusionsSubstantial data have been gathered in the past 30 years suggesting that psychedelics are a potent treatment for a variety of common psychiatric conditions, though the ideal means of employing these substances to minimize adverse events and maximize therapeutic effects remains controversial. Unique factors related to study design are vital for clinical researchers in the field to address.

Indexed as

BanisteriopsisHallucinogensHumansLysergic Acid DiethylamidePsilocybinRisk AssessmentHallucinogensLysergic Acid DiethylamidePsilocybinAdverse eventsAyahuascaClinical reviewDepressionHallucinogensLSDPsilocybinPsychedelics

Identifiers

PMID35022823
OpenAlexW4206268123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.