Discrepancies between publication, protocol and registration
Ioana A. Cristea, Florian Naudet, Clara Miguel
May 12, 2021 preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ne26f (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractA letter to the editor critiques the design and interpretation of a trial comparing psilocybin to escitalopram for depression, arguing that the study's conclusions may be overstated due to methodological issues such as lack of adequate blinding and potential expectancy effects. The author suggests that the reported benefits of psilocybin could be influenced by these factors, and calls for more rigorous research to confirm its efficacy relative to established treatments.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Letter to the editor |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Protocol science Computer science Information retrieval Medicine |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key finding | The letter argues that the trial's comparison of psilocybin to escitalopram may be biased by inadequate blinding and expectancy effects, questioning the validity of the reported superiority of psilocybin. |
Abstract
Letter to the editor in reference to Carhart-Harris R, Giribaldi B, Watts R, et al. Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression. The New England journal of medicine 2021;384:1402-11.