ReviewBJPsych open2025
Reporting of side-effects in clinical trials of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for psychiatric conditions: systematic review.
Review in BJPsych open, 2025. 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.
- Psychedelics and neurostimulation for treatment resistant psychiatric disorders.Discover mental health · 2026Review
- Lived experience as systems-relevant evidence in psychedelic public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Classifying Psychedelic-Related Complications.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsilocybin-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) has gained attention as a promising intervention for conditions including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, but understanding of its side-effects is limited. This review evaluates the quality of side-effects reporting in PAP trials, to guide treatment, policy and research.
aimsTo assess side-effects reporting quality in PAP trials for psychiatric conditions, comparing published articles and ClinicalTrials.gov records.
methodA PROSPERO-registered review (no. CRD42023458960) included English-language PAP trials (2005-2024) identified via Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed and reference searches. Reporting quality was assessed using the CONSORT Harms extension, categorised as either high (17-21), moderate (12-16), low (7-11) or very low (0-6). Randomised controlled trials underwent risk of bias analysis, and descriptive statistics compared side-effects across sources.
resultsTwenty-four trials were included. Reporting quality was high in six studies, moderate in four, low in nine and very low in five. All randomised controlled trials (
conclusionsSide-effects reporting in PAP trials is inconsistent but is improving over time. Existing evidence has a high risk of bias. Future trials should align with best-practice guidelines for side-effects reporting. Discussions with patients should prioritise findings from high-quality studies and emphasise the current uncertainty regarding PAP side-effects.
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.