SynthesisJAMA network open2026
Clinical Evidence on Psilocybin and Its Representation in Media Reporting: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Psilocybin has received increased attention as a potential therapeutic intervention, but it is unclear whether news media reporting reflects the strengths and limitations of the clinical trial evidence. Objective: To describe the annual counts of published clinical trials of therapeutic psilocybin and contemporaneous media articles and compare tone, efficacy, and safety messaging. Evidence Review: This systematic review included English-language randomized and nonrandomized trials of psilocybin for clinical indications published from January 1, 2014, to October 10, 2024, and media articles describing its clinical use published from January 1, 2014, to April 22, 2025. Trials were found by searching Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and were characterized by design, indication, use of psychotherapy, and reporting of efficacy and safety. Media articles were found through the Factiva database and were characterized by audience, tone, indication, efficacy claim, and safety content. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers. Risk of bias for randomized clinical trials was assessed descriptively using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Findings: Annual counts of both published clinical trials (n = 70) and media reports (n = 172) increased from 2018 onward. Depression was the most common clinical indication in trials (47 [67%]) and media articles (138 [80%]), while media articles frequently referenced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (74 [43%]) and anxiety (72 [42%]) as clinical indications despite absent and limited trial evidence, respectively, for these conditions. Overall, 49 trials (70%) reported benefit for the primary indication; 125 media articles (73%) made at least 1 positive efficacy claim, and 122 (71%) adopted a favorable tone. Trials typically described small sample sizes of less than 100 participants (65 trials [93%]) and methodologic limitations. Overall, 31 trials (44%) reported safety outcomes, with some (24 [34%]) documenting short-term adverse events, such as transient anxiety, nausea, or headache; long-term safety was rarely assessed (4 trials [6%]). Only 51 media articles (30%) mentioned safety; when harms were discussed, potential long-term psychological risks were sometimes noted (12 articles [7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of clinical trials and media articles, both reported positive effects of therapeutic psilocybin with similar frequency. Academic publications were more cautious and explicit about methodologic limitations, whereas media reports often presented benefits as established, extrapolated them to indications with little or no trial evidence, and provided less safety information. Clarifying these differences in emphasis may support more transparent public communication of indication-specific evidence and uncertainty as interest in psilocybin-assisted treatments grows.
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.