ReviewJournal of pain research2024
Ethical Considerations Regarding Psychedelics for Clinical Pain Research.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psilocybin, From Ancestral Use to Therapeutic Potential: A Multidimensional Review of Its Pharmacological Basis and Current Perspectives.Human psychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Ethical issues with psychedelic-assisted treatments in psychiatry: A systematic scoping review.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Psychiatric Treatments with Short-Duration Psychedelics and AI-Driven Behavioral Monitoring.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychedelics, substances with a long history of cultural and medicinal use, are experiencing a resurgence in clinical research, particularly in psychiatry. Despite their classification as Schedule I drugs, recent studies suggest therapeutic potential, particularly in treating refractory depression. With chronic pain representing a major health concern and with few non-opioid treatment options available, psychedelics are being explored as alternative treatment modalities. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) now funds psychedelic research, marking a shift from previous decades of limited funding. However, ethical considerations loom large. Vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic pain that impairs their autonomy, require careful consideration by researchers of risks and benefits. Additionally, researchers and interested entities must navigate complex regulatory landscapes involving the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) when considering pursuing possible research. Furthermore, transparent collaboration among stakeholders-patients, researchers, and regulatory bodies-is crucial for participant safety and successful research. Although a number of ethical approaches can be taken, we posit that stakeholders consider utilizing principal-based research ethics, comprised of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence, to guide the process. Ultimately, balancing therapeutic promise with ethical integrity is paramount. Careful planning, collaboration, and adherence to ethical principles can increase the likelihood that psychedelic research in chronic pain management progresses responsibly, offering hope for patients while safeguarding their well-being.
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.