A Systematic Review of Study Design and Placebo Controls in Psychedelic Research

Alexander Wen, Nikhita Singhal, Brett D.M. Jones, Richard J. Zeifman, Shobha Mehta, Mohammad A. Shenasa, Daniel M. Blumberger, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Cory R. Weissman
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Study Design and Placebo Controls in Psychedelic Research","authors":"Alexander Wen, Nikhita Singhal, Brett D.M. Jones, Richard J. Zeifman, Shobha Mehta, Mohammad A. Shenasa, Daniel M. Blumberger, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Cory R. Weissman","doi":"10.1089/psymed.2023.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Effective blinding is especially challenging in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving psychedelics due to the inherent alterations in consciousness that these compounds induce. In this systematic review and exploratory analysis, we aim at synthesizing the methodologies used in RCTs involving classic psychedelics and identify procedures that can help minimize unblinding and bias. Methods: We completed a literature search that included prospective RCTs published between 1963 and January 2023, in which participants were randomized to receive either a classic psychedelic or placebo. Results: A total of 1402 papers were included in the initial search. After eligibility criteria were applied, 50 papers from 48 clinical trials were included. Most studies were double blinded (n = 34), used a within-subjects design (n = 32 studies), and included inert placebos (n = 35). The majority of studies did not report on the integrity of blinding procedures (n = 34 studies); however, in studies that did, blinding was unsuccessful. Conclusion: To improve blinding and lower expectancy effects, we suggest incorporating active placebos and utilizing dose response or active comparator study designs.","PeriodicalId":74590,"journal":{"name":"Psychedelic medicine (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychedelic medicine (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/psymed.2023.0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Effective blinding is especially challenging in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving psychedelics due to the inherent alterations in consciousness that these compounds induce. In this systematic review and exploratory analysis, we aim at synthesizing the methodologies used in RCTs involving classic psychedelics and identify procedures that can help minimize unblinding and bias. Methods: We completed a literature search that included prospective RCTs published between 1963 and January 2023, in which participants were randomized to receive either a classic psychedelic or placebo. Results: A total of 1402 papers were included in the initial search. After eligibility criteria were applied, 50 papers from 48 clinical trials were included. Most studies were double blinded (n = 34), used a within-subjects design (n = 32 studies), and included inert placebos (n = 35). The majority of studies did not report on the integrity of blinding procedures (n = 34 studies); however, in studies that did, blinding was unsuccessful. Conclusion: To improve blinding and lower expectancy effects, we suggest incorporating active placebos and utilizing dose response or active comparator study designs.
致幻剂研究中研究设计和安慰剂对照的系统综述
导读:在涉及致幻剂的随机对照试验(rct)中,有效的盲法尤其具有挑战性,因为这些化合物会诱导意识的固有改变。在这篇系统综述和探索性分析中,我们旨在综合涉及经典迷幻药的随机对照试验中使用的方法,并确定有助于最大限度地减少解盲和偏倚的程序。方法:我们完成了一项文献检索,包括1963年至2023年1月期间发表的前瞻性随机对照试验,其中参与者随机接受经典迷幻药或安慰剂。结果:初查共纳入文献1402篇。应用入选标准后,纳入48项临床试验的50篇论文。大多数研究采用双盲法(n = 34),采用受试者内设计(n = 32),并包括惰性安慰剂(n = 35)。大多数研究没有报告盲法程序的完整性(n = 34项研究);然而,在这样做的研究中,盲法并没有成功。结论:为了改善盲性和低预期效应,我们建议采用有效安慰剂,并采用剂量反应或主动比较研究设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信