Cited by 41Psychedelics and Drug StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionPain Management and Placebo Effect

Methodological challenges in psychedelic drug trials: Efficacy and safety of psilocybin in treatment-resistant major depression (EPIsoDE) – Rationale and study design

Open access
Mertens, Lea J., Koslowski, Michael, Betzler, Felix, Evens, Ricarda, Gilles, Maria, Jungaberle, Andrea, Jungaberle, Henrik, Majić, Tomislav +4 more·2022·Neuroscience Applied

Abstract

Psychedelics such as psilocybin have recently gained remarkable interest in both the specialist literature and the lay press because studies suggest that these substances may have great therapeutic potential in various psychiatric disorders, including major depression. However, clinical trials with psychedelic drugs pose particular methodological challenges to researchers, some of which differ considerably from those with other psychotropic drugs. These include the problem of successful blinding, which can hardly be guaranteed in clinical trials with psychedelic substances and - directly related - the high risk of expectation bias and nocebo effects. Some of these challenges are being addressed in the given clinical trial on the efficacy and safety of psilocybin in treatment-resistant major depression. It is a phase II randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled parallel group trial with 144 patients. The rationale, the study design, and the core features of the study are presented here. The trial (EPIsoDE trial; EudraCT number: 2019-003984-24; NCT04670081) is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01EN2006 ​A/B).

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.nsa.2022.100104

Cites

51 of 52 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

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
Mertens, L. J., Koslowski, M., Betzler, F., Evens, R., Gilles, M., Jungaberle, A., Jungaberle, H., Majić, T., Ströhle, A., Wolff, M., Wellek, S., & Gründer, G.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Mertens, Lea J.
Venue
Neuroscience Applied
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022
Volume
1
Pages
100104
ISSN
2772-4085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4220708535
Cited by
41
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience Applied (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung Dienststelle Berlin
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EN2006A/B)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
psilocybin, psychedelics, clinical trial design, blinding, expectation bias, nocebo effect, antidepressant efficacy, drug safety

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