Seedlabs
Source research

A Systematic Review of Reporting Practices in Psychedelic Clinical Trials: Psychological Support, Therapy, and Psychosocial Interventions

Bill Brennan, Alex R. Kelman, Alexander Belser · 2023 · 43 citationsRead the paper

Background: Psychedelic-assisted therapy has gained significant attention in recent years. However, there is a lack of empirical clarity on the role of psychosocial interventions (PIs) in clinical trials of psychedelic treatment due in part to deficiencies in reporting practices found in the existing literature. These PI include non-drug support or interventions provided by psychotherapists or facilitators during all phases of treatment, sometimes called "psychological support," "monitoring," "psychedelic-assisted therapy," or "psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy." A brief review of recent research, historical studies, safety considerations, and participant perspectives suggests that PI has a substantive and critical impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: This systematic review examines the reporting practices on PI in published clinical trial results. The review employs a search of PubMed/Medline and PSYCinfo databases to identify relevant articles. It includes quantitative clinical studies treating patients with psychiatric indications using classic psychedelics (psilocybin, LSD, DMT, ayahuasca) or empathogenic drugs (MDMA) since 2000. The analytic approach follows a modified version of assessment items based on CONSORT extension statement and TIDieR checklist. Results: Thirty-three published psychedelic clinical trials met criteria. The review reveals that many published reports on psychedelic clinical trials did not report basic aspects of the intervention: 33% did not report the number of sessions, 45% did not report the duration of sessions, 42% did not report provider credentials, 52% did not report whether their intervention used a therapy manual, 64% did not reference a manual that was available to readers, and 82% did not report that they assessed treatment fidelity. A comparison with non-psychedelic trials shows that psychedelic trial reports underreport on key items related to PI. Discussion: The study highlights the problems of underreporting and the importance of improving reporting practices regarding PI in psychedelic clinical trials to enhance research standardization and improve treatment outcomes. Recommendations for improving reporting practices are provided.

What the full text shows

Shown in the lab
  • Psychedelic clinical trials significantly underreport psychosocial intervention (PI) details compared to non-psychedelic trials. — Lagged by at least 10 percentage points on 6 of 16 items (33 published psychedelic clinical trials since 2000)
  • High levels of non-drug spiritual support correlate with better well-being outcomes than low support. — 35h support vs 7h 20min support (Psilocybin sessions with healthy volunteers)
  • Lack of reporting on treatment fidelity in psychedelic trials. — 82% did not report assessment; 100% did not report outcomes (33 published psychedelic clinical trials)
  • Therapeutic alliance predicts reductions in depressive symptoms. — '' (PAT treatment with two psilocybin administrations for moderate to severe depression)
  • High rates of omission regarding basic PI session details. — 33% no session count; 45% no session duration; 52% no therapy manual report (33 published psychedelic clinical trials)
Setup
33 published quantitative clinical trials treating psychiatric indications with classic psychedelics or MDMA since 2000.
How
Systematic review of PubMed/Medline and PSYCinfo databases using a modified version of CONSORT extension and TIDieR checklist to evaluate reporting practices of psychosocial interventions.
Limitations
Search limited to English-language databases · Data extraction performed by a single author · Did not capture use of separate secondary publications for PI data · Excluded psychedelic analogues

Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 8 Oct 2026. Read it