Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107059›Full record

ReviewJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2022

Adverse effects of psychedelics: From anecdotes and misinformation to systematic science.

Anne K Schlag, Jacob Aday, Iram Salam, Jo C Neill, David J Nutt

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

139 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Anne K SchlagDrug Science, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2074-1917
Jacob AdayDrug Science, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0578-8530
Iram SalamDrug Science, London, UK.
Jo C NeillDrug Science, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2717-9739
David J NuttDrug Science, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite an increasing body of research highlighting their efficacy to treat a broad range of medical conditions, psychedelic drugs remain a controversial issue among the public and politicians, tainted by previous stigmatisation and perceptions of risk and danger.

objectiveThis narrative review examines the evidence for potential harms of the classic psychedelics by separating anecdotes and misinformation from systematic research.

methodsTaking a high-level perspective, we address both psychological and psychiatric risks, such as abuse liability and potential for dependence, as well as medical harms, including toxicity and overdose. We explore the evidence base for these adverse effects to elucidate which of these harms are based largely on anecdotes versus those that stand up to current scientific scrutiny.

resultsOur review shows that medical risks are often minimal, and that many - albeit not all - of the persistent negative perceptions of psychological risks are unsupported by the currently available scientific evidence, with the majority of reported adverse effects not being observed in a regulated and/or medical context.

conclusionsThis highlights the importance for clinicians and therapists to keep to the highest safety and ethical standards. It is imperative not to be overzealous and to ensure balanced media reporting to avoid future controversies, so that much needed research can continue.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseHallucinogensCommunicationHumansLysergic Acid DiethylamidePsilocybinHallucinogensLysergic Acid DiethylamidePsilocybinabuse liability/dependenceayahuascadimethyltryptamined-lysergic acid diethylamidehallucinogen persistent perception disorderhypertensionmescalinePsilocybintoxicity

Identifiers

PMID35107059
PMCPMC8905125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.