ReviewJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2024
Is microdosing a placebo? A rapid review of low-dose LSD and psilocybin research.
Review in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Psychedelic Microdosing on Psychological Outcomes in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.CNS drugs · 2026Pooled it
- The Use of Psychedelics in the Treatment of Adult ADHD: A Systematic and Mechanistic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Electrocorticographic Changes and Neuronal Maturation in the Antidepressant-like and Anxiolytic Effects of Micro- or Macrodosing ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of liner properties on the analysis of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) analogs.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- How do psychedelics impact people with a history of non-affective psychosis? A qualitative study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some recent research and commentary have suggested that most or all the effects reported by people who microdose psychedelics may be explained by expectations or placebo effects. In this rapid review, we aimed to evaluate the strength of evidence for a placebo explanation of the reported effects of microdosing. We conducted a PubMed search for all studies investigating psychedelic microdosing with controlled doses and a placebo comparator. We identified 19 placebo-controlled microdosing studies and summarised all positive and null findings across this literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The reviewed papers indicated that microdosing with LSD and psilocybin leads to changes in neurobiology, physiology, subjective experience, affect, and cognition relative to placebo. We evaluate methodological gaps and challenges in microdosing research and suggest eight reasons why current claims that microdosing is predominately a placebo are premature and possibly wrong: (1) there have been only a small number of controlled studies; (2) studies have had small sample sizes; (3) there is evidence of dose-dependent effects; (4) studies have only investigated the effects of a small number of doses; (5) the doses investigated may have been too small; (6) studies have looked only at non-clinical populations; (7) studies so far have been susceptible to selection bias; and (8) the measured impact of expectancy is small. Considering the available evidence, we conclude that it is not yet possible to determine whether microdosing is a placebo.
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.