SynthesisCNS drugs2026
Dextromethorphan Beyond the Cough: Exploring Its Psychedelic Potential: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in CNS drugs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveDextromethorphan (DXM), widely used as an over-the-counter antitussive in the United States, exhibits psychoactive effects at supratherapeutic levels that overlap with those of classic and dissociative psychedelics. Reported psychoactive effects have generated interest in DXM as a potential therapeutic agent for treatment-resistant psychiatric disorders. Despite this emerging interest, its therapeutic dosing parameters, safety profile, and dose-response characteristics remain inadequately defined. This systematic review evaluates the existing literature on DXM administered for its psychedelic properties, with the aim of examining dose relationship patterns.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD420251142239). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through August 8, 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, and observational studies reporting DXM effects on primary psychedelic outcomes including hallucinatory effects, subjective experiences, or cognitive effects and secondary outcomes focused on tolerability in human participants. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Because of substantial heterogeneity in study designs, samples, and outcomes, findings were synthesized narratively using normalized relative subjective and physiological response scores derived from reported peak effects, effect gradients, and comparative ratings.
resultsOf 297 records identified, eight studies representing four unique samples met inclusion criteria. One was an ascending dose-sequence study (n = 12), two were crossover studies (n = 20; n = 32), and one was a single-dose study (n = 40) (n = 104 total). Doses ranged from 100 to 960 mg. Psychedelic effects were observed at 100 mg, while adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, motor impairment, and cognitive slowing, became more prominent above 200 mg. Hallucinatory and mystical phenomena intensified at 300 and 400 mg. Risk of bias was generally rated as having some concerns or high risk, and certainty of evidence was low for most primary outcomes and moderate for secondary outcomes.
conclusionAlthough the evidence is too limited to evaluate true dose-response relationships, the literature showed DXM psychedelic effects beginning at 100 mg, with greater phenomenology intensity at 300 and 400 mg. Current findings support only a preliminary descriptive summary of reported psychedelic effects and highlight the need for larger, prospectively designed dose-finding and clinical applicability studies.
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.