Assessment of the reporting of harms in systematic reviews focused on hallucinogens: A cross-sectional study.
Kaylin Ray, Kaylyn Jade Rowsey, Lauren Kramer, Micah Kee, Holly Flores, Audrey Wise, Morgan Garrett, Brayden Rucker, Ryan Newhardt, Jason Beaman, Matt Vassar
Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) February 1, 2026 DOI: 10.1177/02698811251399554 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractHarms are largely underreported in systematic reviews of hallucinogen use, even when reviews list harms as a primary or secondary outcome. In an analysis of 32 systematic reviews, only 2 (6.3%) reported predetermined methods to grade, collect, or statistically analyze harms data. A significant relationship was found between completeness of harm reporting and whether harms were listed as a primary or secondary outcome. The inadequate reporting is unlikely to provide credible evidence for evaluating benefit-harm trade-offs, and steps should be taken to improve harms reporting in studies of hallucinogen use.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Systematic review Cross-sectional Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 32 |
| Population | Systematic reviews focused on hallucinogen use |
| Keywords | Adverse event Hallucinogens Harms reporting Systematic review |
| Key finding | Harms are largely underreported in systematic reviews of hallucinogen use, with only 2 of 32 reviews reporting predetermined methods for grading, collecting, or statistically analyzing harms data. |
Abstract
To investigate the reporting of harms in systematic reviews (SRs) focused on hallucinogen use. A search was conducted in May 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane databases to retrieve SRs focused on the use of hallucinogens. Investigators screened the titles and abstracts from the search for study inclusion in a masked, triplicate fashion. Investigators analyzed the included SRs for reported harms linked to hallucinogen use via a pre-established harms reporting assessment. Methodological quality of SRs was graded using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were extracted in duplicate. The corrected covered area was measured for SR dyads. Our search returned 908 articles, and 32 SRs met eligibility criteria for final harms reporting analysis. Of the included reviews, 28 SRs (56.2%) indicated harms as a primary or secondary outcome, 2 SRs (6.3%) reported predetermined methods to grade, collect harms data, or statistically analyze harms. A significant relationship was found between completeness of harm reporting and whether harms were listed as a primary or secondary outcome. Harms were largely underreported in scientific literature regarding hallucinogen use, despite many studies designating them as a primary or secondary outcome. Inadequate reporting is unlikely to provide credible evidence used to evaluate the benefit-harm trade-off. Therefore, steps should be taken to improve the reporting of harms in studies concerning hallucinogen use.