Misinterpretations and Omissions: A Critical Response to Goodwin and Colleagues' Commentary on Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy.
Kelley C. O’donnell, Brian T. Anderson, Frederick S. Barrett, Michael P. Bogenschutz, Charles S. Grob, Peter S. Hendricks, Benjamin Kelmendi, Sandeep M. Nayak, Christopher R. Nicholas, Casey A. Paleos, Christopher S. Stauffer, Natalie Gukasyan
Am J Psychiatry January 1, 2024 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20230661 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThis critical response addresses misinterpretations and omissions in a commentary by Goodwin and colleagues on psilocybin-assisted therapy, arguing that the commentary misrepresents existing evidence and overlooks key methodological issues. The authors contend that the commentary fails to adequately discuss safety concerns, including adverse events and the potential for psychological distress, and omits important data on long-term outcomes. They emphasize the need for rigorous, balanced evaluation of psilocybin-assisted therapy's risks and benefits, cautioning against overstating positive outcomes while underreporting negative findings. The response calls for more transparent reporting and careful interpretation of clinical trial results.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Critical response or commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Psychedelic-assisted therapy |
| Keywords | Psilocybin therapy Psilocybin-assisted therapy Mushroom therapy Mental healthcare |
| Citations | 31 |
| Key finding | The commentary by Goodwin and colleagues on psilocybin-assisted therapy contains misinterpretations and omissions that misrepresent evidence and overlook safety concerns, necessitating more balanced and transparent evaluation. |
Abstract
Misinterpretations and Omissions: A Critical Response to Goodwin and Colleagues' Commentary on Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy.