A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the effect of psilocybin and methylenedioxymethamphetamine on mental, behavioural or developmental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: There is an increasing interest in combining psilocybin or methylenedioxymethamphetamine with psychological support in treating psychiatric disorders. Although there have been several recent systematic reviews, study and participant numbers have been limited, and the field is rapidly evolving with the publication of more studies. We therefore conducted a systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL for randomised controlled trials of methylenedioxymethamphetamine and psilocybin with either inactive or active controls. Methods: Outcomes were psychiatric symptoms measured by standardised, validated and internationally recognised instruments at least 2 weeks following drug administration, Quality was independently assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results: There were eight studies on methylenedioxymethamphetamine and six on psilocybin. Diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder, long-standing/treatment-resistant depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social anxiety in adults with autism, and anxiety or depression in life-threatening disease. The most information and strongest association was for the change in methylenedioxymethamphetamine scores compared to active controls in post-traumatic stress disorder ( k = 4; standardised mean difference = −0.86; 95% confidence interval = [−1.23, −0.50]; p < 0.0001). There were also small benefits for social anxiety in adults with autism. Psilocybin was superior to wait-list but not niacin (active control) in life-threatening disease anxiety or depression. It was equally as effective as escitalopram in long-standing depression for the primary study outcome and superior for most of the secondary outcomes in analyses uncorrected for multiple comparisons. Both agents were well tolerated in supervised trials. Trial quality varied with only small proportions of potential participants included in the randomised phase. Overall certainty of evidence was low or very low using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Conclusion: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and psilocybin may show promise in highly selected populations when administered in closely supervised settings and with intensive support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".