Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37942467›Full record

ArticleNeuroethics2024

When the Trial Ends: The Case for Post-Trial Provisions in Clinical Psychedelic Research.

Edward Jacobs, Ashleigh Murphy-Beiner, Ian Rouiller, David Nutt, Meg J Spriggs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Ethical Aspects of Psychedelic-Assisted Treatments: An Overview.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Excusing Psychedelics and Accommodating Psychedelics.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
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.

Edward JacobsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2622-7233
Ashleigh Murphy-BeinerDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ian RouillerPsychedelic Participant Advocacy Network (PsyPAN), London, UK.
David NuttDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Meg J SpriggsDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethical value-and to some scholars, necessity-of providing trial patients with post-trial access (PTA) to an investigational drug has been subject to significant attention in the field of research ethics. Although no consensus has emerged, it seems clear that, in some trial contexts, various factors make PTA particularly appropriate. We outline the atypical aspects of psychedelic clinical trials that support the case for introducing the provision of PTA within research in this field, including the broader legal status of psychedelics, the nature of the researcher-therapist/participant relationship, and the extended time-frame of the full therapeutic process. As is increasingly understood, the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is driven as much by extrapharmacological elements and the cultural therapeutic container as by the drug itself. As such, we also advocate for a refocusing of attention from post-trial access to a broader concept encompassing other elements of post-trial care. We provide an overview of some of the potential post-trial care provisions that may be appropriate in psychedelic clinical trials. Although the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki calls on researchers, sponsors, and governments to make provisions for post-trial access, such provision may feel impracticable or out-of-reach within psychedelic trials that are already constrained by a high resource demand and significant bureaucratic burden. We show how conceiving of post-trial provision as an integral site of the research process, and an appropriate destination for research funding, will serve to develop the infrastructure necessary for the post-legalisation psychedelic medicine ecosystem.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsPost-trial accessPsilocybinPsychedelicResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID37942467
PMCPMC10627912

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.