Lo · The primary care companion for CNS disorders 2024 · systematic review · n=19 studies

Modern Psychedelic Microdosing Research on Mental Health: A Systematic Review.

Cited 8 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic review synthesizing heterogeneous study designs, predominantly observational and self-report surveys with few placebo-controlled trials

PubMed 38228068 · doi:10.4088/PCC.23r03581 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review searching PubMed and Scopus for English-language studies published between January 1, 2012, and November 30, 2022, evaluating the mental health effects of psychedelic microdosing (primarily LSD and psilocybin). From 45 initial records, 27 were screened and 19 studies were included. Methodological quality across the included observational, survey-based, and placebo-controlled studies was evaluated using the QualSyst Quality Assessment Checklist.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical metrics or pooled effect sizes. Synthesized findings showed that microdosing was associated with user-reported positive outcomes, such as improved mood, enhanced focus, and better daily functioning. However, negative effects were also documented, including increased anxiety and physiological discomfort. Several studies indicated that positive participant expectations played a significant role in reported beneficial outcomes.

Why it matters

This review highlights the gap between popular enthusiasm for psychedelic microdosing and the actual strength of the clinical evidence, showing that reported mental health benefits remain largely unconfirmed by rigorous controlled trials and are susceptible to expectancy effects.

Limits

The abstract provides no quantitative effect sizes or pooled participant numbers. The reviewed evidence base is limited by reliance on observational and self-report surveys, small sample sizes, a scarcity of rigorous double-blind randomized controlled trials, and substantial risk of expectancy bias.

Cited by