Cited by 114Treatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesPsychedelics and Drug Studies

Comprehensive assessment of side effects associated with a single dose of ketamine in treatment-resistant depression

Open access
Acevedo-Diaz, Elia E., Cavanaugh, Grace W., Greenstein, Dede, Kraus, Christoph, Kadriu, Bashkim, Zarate, Carlos A., Park, Lawrence T.·2020·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Concerns about ketamine for treating depression include abuse potential and the occurrence of psychotomimetic effects. This study sought to comprehensively assess side effects (SEs) associated with a single subanesthetic-dose intravenous ketamine infusion. A secondary aim was to examine the relationship between Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS) scores and dissociative symptoms reported on a comprehensive, clinician-administered SE questionnaire.Methods Data from 188 participants were pooled from four placebo-controlled, crossover ketamine trials and one open-label study (n = 163 with either treatment-resistant major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder and 25 healthy controls). SEs were actively solicited in a standardized fashion and monitored over the time-course of each study. Statistical analyses assessed the effect of drug (ketamine, placebo) on SEs and measured the relationship between CADSS total score and SEs contemporaneously endorsed during structured interviews.Results Forty-four of 120 SEs occurred in at least 5% of participants over all trials. Thirty-three of these 44 SEs were significantly associated with active drug administration (versus placebo). The most common SE was feeling strange/weird/loopy. Most SEs peaked within an hour of ketamine administration and resolved completely by two hours post-infusion. No serious drug-related adverse events or increased ketamine craving/abuse post-administration were observed. A positive correlation was found between dissociative SEs and total CADSS score.Limitations The post-hoc nature of the analysis; the limited generalizability of a single subanesthetic-dose ketamine infusion; and the lack of formal measures to assess ketamine's cognitive, urological, or addictive potential.Conclusions No long-lasting significant SEs occurred over the approximately three-month follow-up period.

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 · 10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.028

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Minimal clinical research supports these findings, suggesting risks of dependency are extremely low when ketamine is administered in a medical setting.

    “Minimal clinical research supports these findings, suggesting that risks of dependency are extremely low when ketamine is administered in a medical setting [158-160]”

    From Ketamine in neuropsychiatric disorders: an update (2024) · cites this paper as [158]

    The Results (Cravings/Addiction behaviors; page unavailable) report no observed cravings or addiction behavior during inpatient follow-up of up to three months after a single ketamine infusion. But the Discussion (Strengths and limitations; page unavailable) says dependence was not formally measured and the findings do not cover repeated dosing or other routes. The paper therefore does not establish that dependency risk is “extremely low” across medical settings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Psychiatric Association., 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, Fifth edition ed. American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DC, pp. 291 – 307.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Acevedo-Diaz, E. E., Cavanaugh, G. W., Greenstein, D., Kraus, C., Kadriu, B., Zarate, C. A., & Park, L. T.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Acevedo-Diaz, Elia E.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
263
Pages
568-575
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2986913805
Cited by
113
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Institutes of Health (ZIA-MH002857, NCT00088699)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
Keywords
ketamine, treatment-resistant depression, adverse effects, dissociative symptoms, bipolar disorder, abuse liability, psychotomimetic effects, drug safety
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Ketamine, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant

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