SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024
Comparative oral monotherapy of psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, ayahuasca, and escitalopram for depressive symptoms: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutic effects of psilocybin in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring dose effects.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Psilocybin in the Treatment of Cocaine Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Politically Salient Events May Modulate Effects of Naturalistic Psychedelic Use on Support for Partisan Violence.Psychedelic medicine (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Measuring and appraising placebo effects in clinical trials: contemporary challenges and approaches in psychiatry.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2026Review
- Psilocybin in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Seeking Valuable Evidence in History, Pure Science, Clinical Trials and Real-World Data (RWD).Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Psychedelic exposure in pregnancy: a scoping review to inform perinatal drug safety and clinical counseling.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2026Review
- Hospital-based care for hallucinogens and risk of mania and bipolar disorder: A population-based cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Psilocybin as Transformative Fast-Acting Antidepressant: Pharmacological Properties and Molecular Mechanisms.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- Rethinking Depression-Beyond Neurotransmitters: An Integrated Psychoneuroendocrineimmunology Framework for Depression's Pathophysiology and Tailored Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Modifying Informed Consent to Help Address Functional Unmasking in Psychedelic Clinical Trials.JAMA psychiatry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of oral monotherapy using psychedelics and escitalopram in patients with depressive symptoms, considering the potential for overestimated effectiveness due to unsuccessful blinding.
designSystematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrial.gov, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 12 October 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials on psychedelics or escitalopram in adults with depressive symptoms. Eligible randomised controlled trials of psychedelics (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (known as MDMA), lysergic acid diethylamide (known as LSD), psilocybin, or ayahuasca) required oral monotherapy with no concomitant use of antidepressants. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome was change in depression, measured by the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale. The secondary outcomes were all cause discontinuation and severe adverse events. Severe adverse events were those resulting in any of a list of negative health outcomes including, death, admission to hospital, significant or persistent incapacity, congenital birth defect or abnormality, and suicide attempt. Data were pooled using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. To avoid estimation bias, placebo responses were distinguished between psychedelic and antidepressant trials.
resultsPlacebo response in psychedelic trials was lower than that in antidepression trials of escitalopram (mean difference -3.90 (95% credible interval -7.10 to -0.96)). Although most psychedelics were better than placebo in psychedelic trials, only high dose psilocybin was better than placebo in antidepression trials of escitalopram (mean difference 6.45 (3.19 to 9.41)). However, the effect size (standardised mean difference) of high dose psilocybin decreased from large (0.88) to small (0.31) when the reference arm changed from placebo response in the psychedelic trials to antidepressant trials. The relative effect of high dose psilocybin was larger than escitalopram at 10 mg (4.66 (95% credible interval 1.36 to 7.74)) and 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54)). None of the interventions was associated with higher all cause discontinuation or severe adverse events than the placebo.
conclusionsOf the available psychedelic treatments for depressive symptoms, patients treated with high dose psilocybin showed better responses than those treated with placebo in the antidepressant trials, but the effect size was small. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023469014.
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.