ArticleCanadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur2024
Prospective Preference Assessment for the Psilocybin for Enhanced Analgesia in Chronic nEuropathic PAIN (PEACE-PAIN) Trial.
Article in Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective preference assessment for the Ecstasy for Alleviating Severe Chronic Neuropathic Pain (EASE-Pain) trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Trial
- Psilocybin in Older Adults: Therapeutic Opportunities in Inflammation-Driven Disorders of Aging-From Depression to Neurodegeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Prospective Preference Assessment of Potential Participants in the Perioperative Rectal Methadone in Spine Surgery (PROMISE) Trial.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2026Article
- The Emergence of Psilocybin in Psychiatry and Neuroscience.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Negative perceptions of psilocybin and challenges of participant enrollment may represent barriers to conducting a randomized controlled trial examining psilocybin for chronic neuropathic pain. Aim: Prior to trial initiation, we aimed to examine patient attitudes toward the trial via a prospective preference assessment. Methods: Twenty-six patients with chronic neuropathic pain participated in a prospective preference assessment comprising quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) components. Content analysis was used to inductively and deductively identify factors that would motivate or discourage participation in the proposed trial. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and perceptions of psilocybin were collected to explore differences in characteristics between patients who were willing and unwilling to participate. Results: Survey results showed that most participants (76.9%) were willing to participate in the PEACE-PAIN trial. "Willing" participants reported higher prior psychedelic use (75%) as compared to the "maybe willing" (0%) and "not willing" participants (0%). Interviews indicated that the top two factors that motivated participation included the need for new treatment options (31.7%) and benefits to personal pain management (31.7%). The top two discouraging factors included practical difficulties of research participation (16.7%), and adverse events associated with psilocybin (16.7%). Conclusions: The PEACE-PAIN trial study design is supported by patient survey responses but may benefit from modifications, namely incorporating thorough discussions of the current evidence for efficacy, safety, tolerability, and approaches to address adverse effects of psilocybin. Additionally, the interest in participation by individuals with prior psychedelic use holds important methodological implications for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the trial.
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.