politiken.dk/videnskab/ECE1566364/forskere-syretrip-er-godt-mod-alkoholisme/ (danish)

www.nature.com/news/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism-1.10200

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for alcoholism meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract:

“Assessments of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in the treatment of alcoholism have not been based on quantitative meta-analysis. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in order to evaluate the clinical efficacy of LSD in the treatment of alcoholism. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, pooling the effects using odds ratios (ORs) by a generic inverse variance, random effects model. We identified six eligible trials, including 536 participants. There was evidence for a beneficial effect of LSD on alcohol misuse (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.36–2.84; p = 0.0003). Between-trial heterogeneity for the treatment effects was negligible (I² = 0%). Secondary outcomes, risk of bias and limitations are discussed. A single dose of LSD, in the context of various alcoholism treatment programs, is associated with a decrease in alcohol misuse.“

Ordinary language version: Studies show that LSD works for treating alcoholism on the short term with only taking it once. If u think that sounds interesting, then by all means, read the paper. It is not very technical (e.g. not full of medical jargon) and not long. It has some statistics that i didnt understand but most of it is understandable to people that understand correlations and p-tests.

Journalism

Of minor importance to this post but much importance to me as a pet peeve. The journalist almost succeeded in linking to the source “Det skriver nature.com.”. It is very scary that the broad population generally relies on such incompetent writers for their news. Even low quality blogs link to sources (at least some of the time)! The journalists are worse than low-quality bloggers, and they even get paid!

The study

… is pretty cool. It is a good example of good armchair science/meta-science. The authors didnt conduct any new trial. What they did was identify an area where meta-reviews of data was missing, they then found some studies that were useful to do a meta-review on, and then did one. This is the kind of science i wud very much like to do for a living. It fits well with my polymathic ideas of mastering or being very knowledgeable about many areas of science.

As for drug-related research, i hope that this opens up for more interesting research into an area that has been neglected for too long (thanks Nixon, you imbecile!).

0 Comments

Leave a Reply