Enhanced independence: De-biasing processes in psychedelic research and beyond

Research Ethics (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of a treatment or intervention; however, the RCT study design alone is insufficient to prevent all forms of bias. In this paper, we review conflicts of interest and other biases that pose challenges to the methodological rigor of psychedelic RCTs, and explore recommended bias mitigation measures. We focus on biases of special relevance to psychedelic RCTs and methods of mitigating bias that we believe are actionable and urgent practices to implement in psychedelic research: (1) independent data assessment, (2) multisite trials, (3) quantitative bias analysis, and (4) open science practices. Although we advocate for the adoption of these practices in psychedelic research, they are not psychedelic specific. We suggest that the challenges posed by psychedelic research offer an opportunity for researchers to creatively find and implement solutions across the study lifecycle to reduce bias in other fields of clinical research.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What RCTs Do Not Show.Rani Lill Anjum & Stephen Mumford - 2018 - In Rani Lill Anjum & Stephen Mumford, Causation in Science and the Methods of Scientific Discovery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 194-202.

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-04-03

Downloads
89 (#610,969)

6 months
32 (#281,707)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

David Yaden
University of Pennsylvania