Cited by 31Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

Adverse effects of meditation: A review of observational, experimental and case studies

Lambert, D., van den Berg, N. H., Mendrek, A.·2023·Current Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12144-021-01503-2

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

3 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lambert, D., van den Berg, N. H., & Mendrek, A.
Affiliations
Bishop's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Mendrek, A.
Venue
Current Psychology
Published
2021-02-24
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
1112-1125
ISSN
  • 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4733
OpenAlex
W3131623345
Cited by
31
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Psychological Health and Well-Being Cluster
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
Keywords
meditation, adverse effects, mental health, well-being, derealization, hallucinations, delusions, interpersonal problems, false memory, non-clinical population

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