Cited by 453Psychedelics and Drug StudiesHallucinations in medical conditionsForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

Dose-response study of N,N-dimethyltryptamine in humans. II. Subjective effects and preliminary results of a new rating scale.

Strassman, Ruck J.·1994·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Validation of animal models of hallucinogenic drugs' subjective effects requires human data. Previous human studies used varied groups of subjects and assessment methods. Rating scales for hallucinogen effects emphasized psychodynamic principles or the drugs' dysphoric properties. We describe the subjective effects of graded doses of N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), an endogenous hallucinogen and drug of abuse, in a group of experienced hallucinogen users. We also present preliminary data from a new rating scale for these effects. Methods Twelve highly motivated volunteers received two doses (0.04 and 0.4 mg/kg) of intravenous (IV) dimethyltryptamine fumarate "nonblind," before entering a double-blind, saline placebo-controlled, randomized study using four doses of IV DMT. Subjects were carefully interviewed after resolution of drug effects, providing thorough and systematic descriptions of DMT's effects. They also were administered a new instrument, the Hallucinogen Rating Scale (HRS). The HRS was drafted from interviews obtained from an independent sample of 19 experienced DMT users, and modified during early stages of the study. Results Psychological effects of IV DMT began almost immediately after administration, peaked at 90 to 120 seconds, and were almost completely resolved by 30 minutes. This time course paralleled DMT blood levels previously described. Hallucinogenic effects were seen after 0.2 and 0.4 mg/kg of dimethyltryptamine fumarate, and included a rapi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950020022002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strassman, R. J.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
1994-02-01
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
98
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010322651
Cited by
453
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 20
FWCI
7.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R03DA006524)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000997, RR00997-13)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Keywords
N,N-dimethyltryptamine, hallucinogens, dose-response relationship, subjective effects, rating scale development, visual hallucinations, dissociation, blood concentration, animal model validation
MeSH terms
Cognition, Consciousness, N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Emotions, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Placebos, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Illicit Drugs, Visual Perception, Volition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review