Psilocybin for clinical indications: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Psychedelic drugs have been of interest in medicine since the early 1950s. There has recently been a resurgence of interest in psychedelics. AIMS: The objective of this study is to determine the extent of the available literature on psilocybin for medical indications including the designs used, study characteristics, indications studied, doses, and authors' conclusions. We identify areas for further study where there are research gaps. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review of clinical indications for psilocybin, encompassing psychiatric and medical conditions. We systematically searched Medline and Embase using keywords related to psilocybin. We reviewed titles and texts in duplicate using Covidence software. We extracted data individually in duplicate using Covidence software and a senior reviewer resolved all author conflicts. We analyzed data descriptively. RESULTS: We included 193 published and 80 ongoing studies. Thirty-seven percent of included studies were systematic reviews. Only 12% of included studies were randomized controlled trials. The median number of participants was 22 with a median of 18 participants who had taken psilocybin. Thirty-eight percent of studies reported at least one potential conflict of interest. The most common indication was depression (28%). Also commonly studied were substance use (14%), mental health in life-threatening illness (9%), headaches (6%), depression and anxiety (6%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (3%), and anxiety disorders (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies involving the administration of psilocybin have small sample sizes and the most common focus has been psychiatric disorders. There is a need for high-quality randomized trials on psilocybin and to expand consideration to other promising indications, such as chronic pain.

The reporting quality and transparency of orthopaedic studies using Bayesian analysis requires improvement: A systematic review.

Background: Bayesian methods are being used more frequently in orthopaedics. To advance the use and transparent reporting of Bayesian studies, reporting guidelines have been recommended. There is currently little known about the use or applications of Bayesian analysis in orthopedics including adherence to recommended reporting guidelines. The objective is to investigate the reporting of Bayesian analysis in orthopedic surgery studies; specifically, to evaluate if these papers adhere to reporting guidelines. Methods: We searched PUBMED to December 2nd, 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies and full-text screening. We included studies that focused on one or more orthopaedic surgical interventions and used Bayesian methods. Results: After full-text review, 100 articles were included. The most frequent study designs were meta-analysis or network meta-analysis (56%, 95% CI 46-65) and cohort studies (25%, 95% CI 18-34). Joint replacement was the most common subspecialty (33%, 95% CI 25-43). We found that studies infrequently reported key concepts in Bayesian analysis including, specifying the prior distribution (37-39%), justifying the prior distribution (18%), the sensitivity to different priors (7-8%), and the statistical model used (22%). In contrast, general methodological items on the checklists were largely well reported. Conclusions: There is an opportunity to improve reporting quality and transparency of orthopaedic studies using Bayesian analysis by encouraging adherence to reporting guidelines such as ROBUST, JASP, and BayesWatch. There is an opportunity to better report prior distributions, sensitivity analyses, and the statistical models used.

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success. FINDINGS: Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0-30) and 7 (0-56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.