Activity ID
14982Expires
April 15, 2029Format Type
Journal-basedCME Credit
1Fee
$30CME Provider: JAMA Psychiatry
Description of CME Course
Importance Psychedelic drugs possess acute psychoactive effects that can compromise blinding integrity in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Functional unblinding, when participants or raters correctly identify treatment allocation based on subjective effects, may bias outcomes through expectancy effects, challenging the validity of efficacy estimates and regulatory acceptance.
Objective To systematically quantify the prevalence of blinding integrity assessment and the extent of functional unblinding in psychedelic RCTs for psychiatric disorders.
Evidence Review A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines across OVID, MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycINFO (January 1, 2020, to December 11, 2025), supplemented by manual searches of 3 prior reviews for studies prior to January 2020. Eligible studies included all RCTs investigating psychedelics as psychiatric interventions. Data extracted included blinding integrity assessment methods and results for participants and raters.
Findings Of 112 RCTs (11 psilocybin, 17 lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], 78 ketamine, 11 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA], 2 ayahuasca, 2 N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT], and 1 noribogaine), only 29.5% (n = 33) evaluated blinding integrity, yet 57.1% (n = 64) cited blinding as a limitation. Functional unblinding was substantial: psilocybin, LSD, and ayahuasca studies frequently reported blinding failure values of more than 90% among participants and raters, inert placebo-controlled MDMA trials exceeded 85%, and ketamine trials rarely assessed blinding (17.9%) but showed improved preservation with midazolam vs saline controls. No control strategy consistently achieved ideal blinding.
Conclusions and Relevance This first evaluation of blinding integrity in psychedelic RCTs indicates functional unblinding is pervasive among participants and raters raising concerns about the validity of efficacy findings. Few trials assess blinding or expectancy, highlighting the need for standardized, validated measures and innovative designs to separate true pharmacological effects from expectancy-driven responses.
Disclaimers
1. This activity is accredited by the American Medical Association.
2. This activity is free to AMA members.
ABMS Member Board Approvals by Type
ABMS Lifelong Learning CME Activity
Allergy and Immunology
Anesthesiology
Colon and Rectal Surgery
Family Medicine
Medical Genetics and Genomics
Nuclear Medicine
Ophthalmology
Pathology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Plastic Surgery
Preventive Medicine
Psychiatry and Neurology
Radiology
Thoracic Surgery
Urology
Commercial Support?
NoNOTE: If a Member Board has not deemed this activity for MOC approval as an accredited CME activity, this activity may count toward an ABMS Member Board’s general CME requirement. Please refer directly to your Member Board’s MOC Part II Lifelong Learning and Self-Assessment Program Requirements.
Educational Objectives
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
Keywords
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Anesthesiology
Competencies
Medical Knowledge
CME Credit Type
AMA PRA Category 1 Credit
DOI
10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2026.0255