Cited by 100Psychedelics and Drug StudiesPain Management and Placebo EffectStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Expectancy in placebo-controlled trials of psychedelics: if so, so what?

Open access
Butler, Matt, Jelen, Luke, Rucker, James·2022·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Modern psychedelic research remains in an early phase, and the eventual introduction of psychedelics into clinical practice remains in doubt. In this piece, we discuss the role of blinding and expectancy in psychedelic trials, and place this in a broader historical and contemporary context of blinding in trials across the rest of healthcare. We suggest that premature and uncritical promotion (‘hype’) of psychedelics as medicines is not only misleading, but also directly influences participant expectancy in ongoing psychedelic trials. We argue that although psychedelic trials are likely to significantly overestimate treatment effects by design due to unblinding and expectancy effects, this is not a unique situation. Placebo-controlled RCTs are not a perfect fit for all therapeutics, and problems in blinding should not automatically disqualify medications from licencing decisions. We suggest that simple practical measures may be (and indeed already are) taken in psychedelic trials to partially mitigate the effects of expectancy and unblinding, such as independent raters and active placebos. We briefly suggest other alternative trial methodologies which could be used to bolster RCT results, such as naturalistic studies. We conclude that the results of contemporary placebo-controlled RCTs of psychedelics should neither be dismissed due to imperfections in design, nor should early data be taken as firm evidence of effectiveness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-022-06221-6

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Both fields of psychedelics and meditation are marked by strong bias effects, so reported beneficial effects can be overestimated.

    “Both fields of psychedelics and meditation are marked by strong bias effects [119, 120], so reported in studies beneficial effects can be overestimated.”

    From Mindfulness meditation and psychedelics: potential synergies and commonalities (2023) · cites this paper as [119]

    The Introduction and “Blinding and expectancy” sections describe how difficulty blinding psychedelic trials and participants’ positive expectations can complicate estimates of benefit. The cited paper does not address meditation, so it supports the psychedelic portion of the jointly cited claim but not the statement about both fields. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The potential confounding effect of high positive expectancy has been seen in previous studies of PAT.

    “The potential confounding effect of high positive expectancy has been seen in previous studies of PAT [58,59].”

    From Psilocybin‐assisted psychotherapy for methamphetamine use disorder: A pilot open‐label safety and feasibility study. (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

    In “Blinding and expectancy” (page unavailable), the paper says positive expectancy could affect outcomes and cites a microdosing trial in which expectation predicted well-being. But it also says this phenomenon has not been explored in detail in modern psychedelic clinical trials, so the claim overstates what previous psychedelic-assisted therapy studies have shown. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butler, M., Jelen, L., & Rucker, J.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2022-09-05
Volume
239
Issue
10
Pages
3047-3055
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W4294667223
Cited by
100
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 1
FWCI
16.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-INF-1861)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/T028084/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
psychedelics, expectancy effects, blinding, unblinding, active placebo, naturalistic study, overestimation of treatment effects, trial design limitations
MeSH terms
Emotions, Hallucinogens, Humans, Psilocybin, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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