Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):e0229067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229067

Self-reported negative outcomes of psilocybin users: A quantitative textual analysis

Bheatrix Bienemann 1, Nina Stamato Ruschel 1, Maria Luiza Campos 1, Marco Aurélio Negreiros 1, Daniel C Mograbi 1,2,*
Editor: Giuseppe Carrà3
PMCID: PMC7034876  PMID: 32084160

Abstract

Psilocybin, a substance mainly found in mushrooms of the genus psilocybe, has been historically used for ritualistic, recreational and, more recently, medicinal purposes. The scientific literature suggests low toxicity, low risk of addiction, overdose, or other causes of injury commonly caused by substances of abuse, with growing interest in the use of this substance for conditions such as treatment-resistant depression. However, the presence of negative outcomes linked to psilocybin use is not clear yet. The objective of this study is to investigate the negative effects of psilocybin consumption, according to the users' own perception through self-reports extracted from an online platform. 346 reports were analyzed with the assistance of the IRAMUTEQ textual analysis software, adopting the procedures of Descending Hierarchical Classification, Correspondence Factor Analysis and Specificities Analysis. The text segments were grouped in 4 main clusters, describing thinking distortions, emergencies, perceptual alterations and the administration of the substance. Bad trips were more frequent in female users, being associated with thinking distortions. The use of multiple doses of psilocybin in the same session or its combination with other substances was linked to the occurrence of long-term negative outcomes, while the use of mushrooms in single high doses was linked to medical emergencies. These results can be useful for a better understanding of the effects of psilocybin use, guiding harm-reduction initiatives.

Introduction

The growing use of psychedelic substances has been prominent in epidemiological research. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes 2019 World Drug Report, there is an upward trend in recent years on quantities of hallucinogenic substances seized all over the world. This is in agreement with reported qualitative information on increasing use of this class of substances recently [1, but see 2]. Data from the 2019 Global Drug Survey indicates that among the 20 drugs used most prominently over the past year, 6 were psychedelic drugs [3]. From 2017 to 2019, “magic mushrooms” (mushrooms from the genus psilocybe) in particular had increases in lifetime use from 24.4% to 34.2% and use in the last 12 months from 10.4% to 14.8% [3, 4]. These increases are mirrored by the growth of the new psychoactive substances (NPS) market in Europe in the last years [2], with some NPS attempting to mimic the effects of classic psychedelics.

Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), the active ingredient in “magic mushrooms”, has been investigated in relation to its medicinal properties, in particular for conditions such as treatment-resistant depression (TRD) [5], with suggestions that psychedelic research may lead to a paradigm shift in psychiatry [6, 7]. Psilocybin has also shown potential clinical benefits for depression and anxiety in end-stage cancer [8], possibly with reductions in death anxiety underpinning its therapeutic effects [9]. Although psilocybin is considered a toxicologically safe substance [1012], there is no scientific consensus on the risks that the use of psilocybin may bring [13].

In a recent study by Carbonaro et al. [14], 10.7% of users reported that, under psilocybin, they placed themselves or others at risk of physical damage; 2.6% reported being violent or physically aggressive with themselves or others, and 2.7% reported having sought help in a hospital or emergency room. Regarding mental health outcomes, significant associations between the consumption of hallucinogens throughout life and mood, anxiety, personality, eating and substance abuse disorders were found in an epidemiological study [15]. This is in agreement with anecdotal evidence indicating persistent anxiety disorder after consumption of mushrooms containing psilocybin [16].

However, there are divergences relative to these findings. In a populational study by Krebs and Johansen [17], no negative mental health outcomes related to the use of classical psychedelics [LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), psilocybin, mescaline or peyote (Lophophora williamsi)] were found. In fact, the authors reported findings indicated that the use of psychedelics was associated with decreased mental health problems. Similarly, another large epidemiological study found no relationship between psychedelic use and incidence of psychosis [18]. In addition, some recent studies have demonstrated the potential for psilocybin to treat or alleviate symptoms present in different clinical conditions [e.g. 6,1921].

The analysis of self-reported user data is a method often neglected in the scientific literature. There are sites exclusively devoted to the storage and dissemination of information about psychoactive substances, with users visiting these sites to informally publish and share reports of their own experiences with different substances and the outcomes they cause. In addition to serving, potentially, to harm reduction purposes, providing access to information for users, these sites create an opportunity for real-time evaluation of emerging drug trends [e.g. 22].

Psilocybin is capable of promoting intense perceptual changes that include hallucinations, synesthesia, and alterations in temporal perception, as well as changes in emotion and thoughts, which may lead to risk of harmful use [23]. In addition, healthy individuals may experience episodes of bad trips–negative experiences, which may involve mental confusion, agitation, extreme anxiety, fear and psychotic episodes–including bizarre and frightening images, severe paranoia, and loss of sense of reality [24]. The relationship between bad trip episodes and certain mental states and/or physical settings is also relevant to consider subjective aspects as important triggers of anxiogenic outcomes related to the use of psychedelic substances. Understanding the specific circumstances in which psilocybin may lead to negative outcomes may have important implications for the future clinical use of this substance, also providing relevant information for harm reduction initiatives.

Considering this, as well as the scarcity of quantitative analyses of self-reported user data, the aim of this work was to investigate negative effects resulting from the consumption of psilocybin, according to the perception of users themselves. Specifically, we sought to investigate the occurrence of health problems caused by the consumption of the substance, negative acute effects and contextual details of the experiences and possible relationships with the negative outcomes.

Methods

Extraction of data and construction of textual corpus

The textual data were obtained from reports manually extracted from the EROWID website (www.erowid.org), a database dedicated to reporting on psychoactive substances and documenting actual reports of users. The reports are reviewed before being published and authors are asked to fulfill certain criteria, such as: description of the context in which the experience was performed and of their previous mental states, details of the preparations made for the use, dosage and time information, observations on possible other medications, herbs or supplements used and a description of the physical and mental effects experienced.

The reports are published anonymously, freely accessible and available on the website in several categories [see 25]. In this research we selected the reports of the subcategories “health problems”, “bad trips”, “train wreck & trip disasters”, present in the category described as Mushrooms (Magic Mushrooms; Psilocybin-containing Fungi). Reports describing the use of mushrooms with substances other than psilocybin as the main active ingredient (e.g. Amanita muscaria) were not included. The texts (n = 346) were transcribed manually and any grammar or typing errors were corrected. In addition, some symbols were deleted or replaced (e.g., dashes, quotation marks, indents) to enable analysis by the software. The average length of the reports was 1319.5 words.

In addition, the reports were also categorized according to the following variables: the three subcategories mentioned above (“health problems”, “bad trips”, “train wreck & trip disasters”), presence of other substances besides mushrooms, dosage, route of administration, form of consumption (dried, tea or fresh and pure) and gender of user (one of the few socio-demographic variables consistently available from the reports). For dosage, a binary variable (doses below and above 5g) was created for the analyses, considering what has been described as a high dose with qualitatively different experiences [26]. Missing values in the variables were classified as null and classifications different from the ones mentioned above were classified as other. To determine the reliability of the analysis, inter-rater reliability was calculated for all categories that have not been previously provided by the website (i.e., presence of other substances besides mushrooms, dosage, route of administration, form of consumption, and gender of user; see S1 Fig for a model of report). Total agreement between raters was 92.3%, with a kappa of .85 (p < .001).

Data analysis

The participants' answers were initially analyzed qualitatively and freely, in order to generate familiarity with the content. During this stage, the reports were read in detail, one by one, by two members of the research team. Subsequently, the texts were analyzed quantitatively through IRaMuTeQ 0.7 alpha 2 [27] and R 3.1.2. [28]. The analysis was carried out in the textual corpus constructed from the reports and their categorizations, using text segments (TS). TS are divisions of the text, defining the context in which words appear. TS are automatically sized according to the corpus extension; in this study we used the default division provided by Iramuteq (40 words per text segment; please see S1 Fig). We used the procedures of the Descending Hierarchical Analysis (DHA, Reinert Method); Specificities and Correspondence Factor Analysis (CFA). DHA seeks to obtain textual content clusters with specific meanings, resulting from the similarity, association and frequency of their vocabularies. CFA results in a graphical visualization of the proximities, oppositions and tendencies of the text segments (TS) or corpora classes; locating these elements in a Cartesian graph with factors generated from their classifications and allowing graphical visualization of the co-occurrence between words and the possible communities in which they coalesce [29]. Specificities analysis indicates the index of co-occurrence between the words, i.e. the relationship of the words between them and the communities formed by groups composed of the words that are most associated.

The criteria for inclusion of both words and categories in their respective classes by DHA are a frequency greater than the mean of occurrences in the corpus and a chi-square value with the cluster greater than 3.84. The words of interest (active forms) selected for analysis were adjectives, nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs and forms not recognized by the IRaMuTeQ dictionary. In addition, when words presented with other associated forms (e.g., test, testing, tested), the most frequent form was chosen for graphic representation. The chi-square test values ​​indicate how strongly words and categories are associated with their clusters [29]. We also reported Cramer’s V, a measure of effect size for the association [30]. To avoid inflation of type I error, α was set at .01.

Ethical issues

All materials were anonymized, preventing identification of subjects. Considering that data was public, in agreement with national ethics regulation [31], application for ethics committee approval was dispensed [31; p. 2].

Results

Descending hierarchical analysis

The analysis by DHA retained 98.4% of the total corpus, a percentage indicated as acceptable for the corpus to be considered for this type of analysis [29]. The corpus was divided into 12,215 TS, of which 12,414 (98.4%) were retained, relating 15,788 words that occurred 453,711 times (mean of occurrence for TS = 33.55). Of these, the active forms formed 11,239 words, with 2,637 words with frequency greater than six. As can be seen in dendrogram form (Fig 1), DHA resulted in four clusters of words. Initially, the clusters were grouped into two distinct branches, one composed only of cluster 4 (28.1% of total forms classified) and the other composed of another branch with cluster 3 (20.1%) in one of the extremities and a grouping of clusters 1 (30.5%) and 2 (21.4%) in the other. For the association between words and clusters (degrees of freedom = 3), considering that the 25 words with highest association in each cluster are reported, Cramer’s V indicated medium and, particularly in Clusters 3 and 4, large effect sizes [30].

Fig 1. Dendogram with the 25 words with highest χ2 in each cluster.

Fig 1

Small (red), medium (blue) and large (green) effect sizes, according to (30).

Correspondence factor analysis

The CFA carried out in order to visualize the relation between the clusters indicated that the clusters are divided mainly in three large areas, with cluster 1 and class 2 being strongly related to each other (Fig 2). In relation to the previous categories of the reports and other variables of interest, it is observed that cluster 1 was significantly associated with the subcategory bad trips (χ2 (2) = 53.81; p < .001, V = .39) and more frequently reported by female users (χ2 (2) = 13.38; p < .001, V = .20); cluster 2 with train wrecks and trip disasters (χ2 (2) = 155.92; p < .001, V = .67), use of just mushrooms (χ2 (1) = 15.56; p < .001, V = .21) and single doses (χ2 (4) = 11.72; p < .001, V = .18) and cluster 4 with health problems (χ2 (2) = 67.61; p < .001, V = .46), multiple doses in the same session (χ2 (3) = 12.39; p < .001, V = .19) and consumption of other substances besides mushrooms (χ2 (1) = 17.22; p < .001, V = .22). Cluster 3 did not relate to any category and there were no other significant associations (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Relationship between clusters and words in each cluster.

Fig 2

Red–Cluster 1; green–Cluster 2; blue–Cluster 3; purple–Cluster 4.

Fig 3. Words relation by cluster and category associated with each cluster.

Fig 3

Words in blue belong to Cluster 1 that relates to category 3 (Bad Trips), words in green to Cluster 2 that relates to category 2 (Train Wrecks and Trip Disasters), words in red belong to Cluster 4 that relates to category 1 (Health Problems). Cluster 3 did not relate to any category and is not represented in the graph.

Specificities analysis

The specificities analysis, indicating the index of co-occurrence between the words, can be seen in Fig 4 (cluster1), Fig 5 (cluster2), Fig 6 (cluster 3) and Fig 7 (cluster 4).

Fig 4. Co-occurrence and communities for words in cluster 1.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Co-occurrence and communities for words in cluster 2.

Fig 5

Fig 6. Co-occurrence and communities for words in cluster 3.

Fig 6

Fig 7. Co-occurrence and communities for words in cluster 4.

Fig 7

Discussion

The objective of this study was to analyze reports of experiences with psychedelics that led to negative outcomes, according to the perception of the users themselves. The results indicated that the textual corpus was susceptible to this type of analysis. The textual analysis carried out by means of the DHA gave rise to four clusters of words, i.e. four main fields with different meanings in the participants' reports.

Cluster 1, which included 30.5% of TS, has two main axes: “feel” and “think”. Although the word “feel” may refer to sensorial experiences, the specificities analysis (Fig 4) indicates that these terms were used in reference to mental elucubrations. This is reinforced by the inclusion in the cluster of words and associations such as insane, crazy, mind-race, mind-lose, death, die, fear, among others. The specific contents of this cluster, as well as its association with the category bad trips, suggests that short term negative experiences are essentially linked to paranoia and fear/anxiety responses. This is in agreement with previous literature on negative reactions to psychedelics and highlights how these are driven by distortions at the level of thought, co-occurring with anxious states. It suggests that management of anxiety, either by pharmacological or contextual agents (e.g. setting) is crucial in the administration of psilocybin. This cluster was also associated with female users. It is possible that this represents stronger effects in women with similar doses of psilocybin, which could be explained by enzymatic, hormonal or social differences between men and women.

Cluster 2, which accounted for 21.4% of TS, has central words linked to action, e.g. walk, back, tell, call, car. Examining the specificities analysis of this class (Fig 5), indicate that the word associations suggest measures that had to be taken in response to the negative experiences. The presence of words such as ambulance, cop, police, hospital and the significant association of this cluster with the train wrecks and trip disasters subcategory indicate the occurrence of emergencies. Such occurrences probably include the need for medical attention, detention by the police force, need for parental help, etc, also requiring transportation, as indicated by words that refer to the process of getting ready, leaving some place, means of transportation, among others.

This cluster was also associated with single doses of psilocybin only. One way to interpret this result is considering a trend for an association between this cluster and doses above 5g (χ2 = 4.22; p = .040), which was not significant considering the established α of .01. This suggests that emergencies were linked to single high doses of psilocybin, which is relevant in terms of identifying the safety profile of the substance, also establishing a potential benchmark that may increase unwanted consequences accompanying consumption.

It is important to highlight the strong proximity between clusters 1 and 2, as demonstrated by the CFA (Fig 2). The association between both types of experiences suggests that subjective experiences of bad trips are directly linked to emergencies. The direction of causality, however, is not clear. It is possible that emergency procedures were carried out in response to anxiety (e.g. a request for medical care due to excessive fear of dying or going crazy). Conversely, negative emergence outcomes themselves may have contributed further to the occurrence of bad trips, which are often strongly influenced by the setting in which the experience occurred [13,24,3235], although this is a less straightforward explanation.

Cluster 3 was made up of 20.1% of TS, with words such as eye, color, pattern, light, visual, vision, stare, referring to visual distortions and sensory-perceptual changes in general, which are well known in psychedelic experiments [14,3638]. The absence of categories significantly associated with this cluster (Fig 1 and Fig 6) is probably explained by the fact that such described effects are common to psychedelics use as a whole, including benign use.

Finally, cluster 4 collected 28.05% of TS, and agglutinated words that seem to refer to the context of psilocybin use (Fig 7), including preparation of mushrooms (e.g. eat, dry, tea), dosage (e.g. dose, gram, bag), use with other substances (e.g. smoke, weed, LSD) and contextual details such as date (e.g. weekend, month). This cluster was associated with the concurrent use of other substances and use of multiple doses in the same session. In addition, this cluster was also associated with the subcategory “health problems”, typically indicative of longer-term complications. It is possible that these complications are consequences of use associated with other substances, given the presence of words like weed, pot, marijuana, LSD, acid. This fact may reinforce the findings about negative outcomes that occur more frequently due to the use of psilocybin associated with other substances, especially alcohol [13,39], and may explain discrepancies in the literature in relation to the association between psychedelic use and negative mental health outcomes.

Conclusion

This study aimed to analyze self-reports of negative experiences with psilocybin according to the perception of the users themselves. Psilocybin has been used for centuries, with increased medical interest in recent decades, but the wealth of experience of users has rarely been investigated with sound methodology in the scientific literature. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze, using appropriate software, the structure and associations of user self-reported experiences. Findings reinforce the need to manage anxiety during psilocybin administration [24], indicating that distortions at the level of thought were the main cause for bad trips. Additionally, these bad trips were also associated with high doses of psilocybin as well as with emergencies. Longer-term health problems were associated with multiple doses and concurrent use with other substances, in agreement with existing literature [13, 39]. These findings clarify individual and contextual elements that may precipitate negative outcomes linked to psilocybin use, assisting in the elaboration of safety guidelines for users and/or researchers.

The study has a number of important limitations, including a large number of missing values, which prevented the analysis of contextual variables, including setting-specific information. Another limitation refers to sampling, with these reports potentially not representing fully psilocybin users and even with the effective use of substances not being secured in fact, as they only come from reports shared online. This consideration should be done together with the issue of self-selection, that can promote a biased sample with non-probability sampling, considering only experiences that are reported by the users at the website. Additionally, the illegal status of psilocybin is also a potential confounder for results, as the negative outcomes may be connected to black market influences (e.g. different substance being consumed, lack of information about freshness of mushrooms) and not to the substance itself. Nevertheless, given that psilocybin remains being consumed illegally, the current findings provide information valuable to understand use under current circumstances. Finally, the study is exploratory in nature. In this sense, the current study may be used to generate hypotheses by other researchers in the field conducting experimental work, helping to clarify the relationship between contextual variables and subjective effects of psychedelic experience, including the content of the "trips" reported by the users. Further studies are needed to establish more consistently the long and short term consequences of psilocybin use.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the work done by Erowid.org in providing information about the use of psychoactive substances and promoting increased awareness on this topic.

Data Availability

The article analyses data already publicly available at www.erowid.org.

Funding Statement

D.C.M. acknowledges funding from the National Research Council (CNPq ref 312370) and the Carlos Chagas Filho Research Support Foundation (FAPERJ ref 226501). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2019 World Drug Report—Booklet 5: Cannabis and hallucinogens. 2019;9–25. Available from: 10.18356/a4dd519a-en. [DOI]
  • 2.European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). EU Drug Markets Report 2019. [Internet]. 2019. Avalaible from: www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/joint-publications/eu-drug-markets-report-2019_en
  • 3.GDS. Global Drug Survey 2019 [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/gds-2019/
  • 4.GDS. Global Drug Survey 2017 [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/gds-2017/
  • 5.Carhart-Harris RL, Bolstridge M, Rucker J, Day CMJ, Erritzoe D, Kaelen M, et al. Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: an open-label feasibility study. The lancet Psychiatry. 2016. July;3(7):619–27. 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30065-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schenberg EE. Psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy: A paradigm shift in psychiatric research and development. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9(JUL):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nutt D. Psychedelic drugs—a new era in psychiatry?
 Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019. June; 21(2): 139–147. 10.31887/DCNS.2019.21.2/dnutt [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dos Santos RG, Bouso JC, Hallak JEC4. (2019). Serotonergic hallucinogens/psychedelics could be promising treatments for depressive and anxiety disorders in end-stage cancer. BMC Psychiatry. 2019. October 28;19(1):321 10.1186/s12888-019-2288-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Moreton SG, Szalla L, Menzies RE, Arena AF. Embedding existential psychology within psychedelic science: reduced death anxiety as a mediator of the therapeutic effects of psychedelics. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2019. November 29 10.1007/s00213-019-05391-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Johnson MW, Griffiths RR, Hendricks PS, Henningfield JE. The abuse potential of medical psilocybin according to the 8 factors of the Controlled Substances Act. Neuropharmacology. 2018. November;142:143–66. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.05.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.dos Santos RG, Bouso JC, Alcázar-Córcoles MÁ, Hallak JEC. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of serotonergic psychedelics for the management of mood, anxiety, and substance-use disorders: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol [Internet]. 2018;11(9):889–902. Available from: 10.1080/17512433.2018.1511424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rucker JJH, Jelen LA, Flynn S, Frowde KD, Young AH. Psychedelics in the treatment of unipolar mood disorders: A systematic review. J Psychopharmacol. 2016;30(12):1220–9. 10.1177/0269881116679368 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Amsterdam J van, Opperhuizen A, Brink W van den. Harm potential of magic mushroom use: A review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol [Internet]. 2011;59(3):423–9. Available from: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Carbonaro TM, Bradstreet MP, Barrett FS, MacLean KA, Jesse R, Johnson MW, et al. Survey study of challenging experiences after ingesting psilocybin mushrooms: Acute and enduring positive and negative consequences. J Psychopharmacol. 2016;30(12):1268–78. 10.1177/0269881116662634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shalit N, Rehm J, Lev-Ran S. Epidemiology of hallucinogen use in the U.S. results from the National epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions III. Addict Behav [Internet]. 2019;89(July 2018):35–43. Available from: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.09.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Benjamin C. Persistent psychiatric symptoms after eating psilocybin mushrooms. Br Med J. 1979. May;1(6174):1319–20. 10.1136/bmj.1.6174.1319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Krebs TS, Johansen P-Ø. Psychedelics and Mental Health: A Population Study. PLoS One [Internet]. 2013;8(8):e63972 Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Johansen P-O, Krebs TS. Psychedelics not linked to mental health problems or suicidal behavior: A population study. J Psychopharmacol. 2015;29(3):270–9. 10.1177/0269881114568039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bogenschutz MP, Ross S. Therapeutic Applications of Classic Hallucinogens. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2018;36:361–91. 10.1007/7854_2016_464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Johnson MW, Griffiths RR. Potential Therapeutic Effects of Psilocybin. Neurotherapeutics. 2017. July;14(3):734–40. 10.1007/s13311-017-0542-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thomas K, Malcolm B, Lastra D. Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy: A Review of a Novel Treatment for Psychiatric Disorders. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2017;49(5):446–55. 10.1080/02791072.2017.1320734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wightman RS, Perrone J, Erowi F, Erowid E, Meisel ZF, & Nelson LS. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Opioid Queries on Erowid.org: An Opportunity to Advance Harm Reduction. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(10), 1315–1319. 10.1080/10826084.2016.1276600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sellers EM. Psilocybin: Good Trip or Bad Trip. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017. October;102(4):580–4. 10.1002/cpt.697 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Johnson MW, Richards WA, Griffiths RR. Human hallucinogen research: Guidelines for safety. J Psychopharmacol. 2008;22(6):603–20. 10.1177/0269881108093587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.EROWID. Erowid Experience Vaults [Internet]. Available from: https://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp_list.shtml
  • 26.Oss OT, Oeric ON. Psilocybin: Magic Mushroom Grower’s Guide: A Handbook for Psilocybin Enthusiasts. 2nd ed. Quick American Archives; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ratinaud P, Marchand P. Application de la méthode ALCESTE aux « gros » corpus et stabilité des « mondes lexicaux »: analyse du « CableGate » avec IRAMUTEQ. In: Actes des 11eme Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles [Internet]. 2012. p. 835–44. Available from: http://lexicometrica.univ-paris3.fr/jadt/jadt2012/Communications/Ratinaud, Pierre et al.—Application de la methode Alceste.pdf
  • 28.R Core Team. R language 3.1.2. 2017.
  • 29.Loubère L, Ratinaud P. Documentation IRaMuTeQ 0.6 alpha 3 version 0.1. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.iramuteq.org/documentation/fichiers/documentation_19_02_2014.pdf
  • 30.Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2017;42(2):152–155. 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ministry of Health, National Health Council. Resolution No 510 of April 7 2016. Brazil; 2016
  • 32.Barrett FS, Bradstreet MP, Leoutsakos J-MS, Johnson MW, Griffiths RR. The Challenging Experience Questionnaire: Characterization of challenging experiences with psilocybin mushrooms. J Psychopharmacol. 2016;30(12):1279–95. 10.1177/0269881116678781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Edelson E. Psilocybin and Relationship Satisfaction [Internet]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. [Ann Arbor: ]: Alliant International University; 2017. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1951729942?accountid=26649 [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Studerus E, Gamma A, Kometer M, Vollenweider FX. Prediction of psilocybin response in healthy volunteers. PLoS One. 2012;7(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Studerus E, Gamma A, Vollenweider FX. Psychometric evaluation of the altered states of consciousness rating scale (OAV). PLoS One. 2010;5(8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Fischer R, Hill RM, Warshay D. Effects of psychodysleptic drug psilocybin on visual perception. Changes in brightness preference. Experientia. 1969. February;25(2):166–9. 10.1007/bf01899102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Linszen M, Kleijer H, Sommer I. Visual hallucinations and lifetime use of hallucinogen perception persisting disorder associated recreational drugs: results from a large online survey. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol [Internet]. 2018;28:S82–3. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X17321442 [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nour MM, Evans L, Nutt D, Carhart-Harris RL. Ego-Dissolution and Psychedelics: Validation of the Ego-Dissolution Inventory (EDI). Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2016;10(June):1–13. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00269/abstract [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Satora L, Goszcz H, Ciszowski K. Poisonings resulting from the ingestion of magic mushrooms in Krakow. Przegl Lek. 2005;62(6):394–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Giuseppe Carrà

21 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-25745

Self-reported negative outcomes of psilocybin users: A quantitative textual analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 20 February 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe

Giuseppe Carrà, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

D.M. acknowledges funding from FAPERJ and CNPq.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

D.C.M. acknowledges funding from the National Research Council (CNPq ref 312370) and the Carlos Chagas Filho Research Support Foundation (FAPERJ ref 226501). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Daniel,

reviewers have now completed their task. As you'll see the manuscript has merits, though several revisions are needed before it can be considered suitable for publication.

I'd be glad to consider a revised version of your interesting work.

WBR

Giuseppe Carrà

Academic Editor

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments for Manuscript Number PONE-D-19-25745

Self-reported negative outcomes of psilocybin users: A quantitative textual analysis

This is an interesting study based in an unusual approach which accessed publically available self-reported negative outcomes of psilocybin use.

Research on illicit drugs is largely focused on epidemiological data and on etic more than emic perspectives. To understand people`s experiences with psychoactive substances by their own words is absolutely crucial to produce useful knowledge when it comes to design harm reduction strategies or to address possible clinical potential. This is, therefore, a relevant approach. Besides that, the manuscript is clear for both expert and non-expert publics, well organised and well written.

Authors explain the need for that kind of research approaches and sustain what is said in scientific literature. Nevertheless, I think it is possible and desirable to go much further on references used, since this is a hot topic with increasing stiduies available. For example, to address the growing use of psychedelic substances, authors make reference to the Global Drug Survey. This is valid source but there are others (like UNODC or EMCDDA reports) that can be combined with this one. This is even more important if we take in consideration the levels of uncertainty when it comes to prevalence of illicit drug use and to the low control of biases involved in the global drug report collection of data. Besides that, many studies on the effects of psilocybin are now being published, both in controlled and uncontrolled settings.

The introduction section includes complementary and contradictory data regarding psilocybin potential benefits and harms, which is positive. It also explains how the study will try to contribute to reduce lacunar knowledge in that scenario. A minor comment to that section: at a certain point, authors state that “these sites [devoted to the storage and dissemination of information about psychoactive substances] (…) acting as a valuable resource for prospective or current users”. I tend to agree with this, but we truly don`t know if it is true, unless studies document those positive outcomes…

Methods used and correspondent analysis are adequate to an exploratory study (and the fact that there were two researchers performing the analysis is important) and well described. I personally think that a classic content analysis would bring much more insight over what is the aim of the study but, given the exploratory nature of this approach, this research is already a step forward in producing necessary knowledge.

Minor comments to the method section: authors simply mention that gender of the user will be a variable to analyse, but don´t explain why this was the only socio-demographic element taken in consideration.

However, I see two problems with this methodological strategy:

- one is referred by the authors at the end of the article and refers relevant biases related to the representation of the sample;

- the other one is not mentioned and I think it would be fundamental to take in consideration. Since psilocybin use is classified as illicit, we cannot know, for sure, to what level are those negative outcomes really connected to psilocybin itself or to problems related to the black market vicissitudes (for example not being psilocybin the substance in question). It would be interesting, also, to combine in the conclusion section the results of the study with more scientific literature regarding the same topic, since there are already many studies on the effects of the substance.

Reviewer #2: After reviewing this study, I think it is a solid piece of research. There are, however, a few methodological considerations to be made with the suggestion of providing further information in a revised version of the manuscript.

Before that, I would like to suggest the author that a word of caution should be expressed in the discussion section about the data on which the study is based. They are self-reported reports of the use of psilocybin, and therefore no 'ground truth' about their effective use of substances can be secured. This consideration should be done together with the issue of self-selection

- Having said that, there a few problems with the methodology description that needs clarification:

Reports have been manually categorized using several variables. Some are reporting plain information, while some are more interpretative. Therefore a form of inter-coder reliability should be added since this coding is crucial for the following analysis using Iramuteq. Examples of such coding the appendix would be welcome.

- The automatic text analysis deployed is sound, and the use of DHA is appropriate giving the context, but some additional information should be provided about what was the unit of context (UC) on which the analysis is performed. Later in the text, the authors mention 'text segments', but it is not clear how these were formally defined. This is an important point as the results of the DHA can vary substantially.

Information about the average length of the reports should be included.

-The outcome of the DHA is expressed in chi-square statistics that reveal the presence of association, in this case between a given set of 'structural variables and linguistic patterns. The relative strength of this association is not part of the output of the software itself, but the authors could test it using phi and creamer's v.

If the above points are addressed in a revised version of the manuscript, I believe the paper to be fit for publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):e0229067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229067.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Jan 2020

Dear Giuseppe,

Thanks for the careful editing of the manuscript. In addition to point-by-point replies to the reviewers (please see the response to reviewers file, at the end of the submission), we updated the files names according to the journal guidelines and removed funding information from the acknowledgements. The current information on the funding statement section is correct.

If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

All the best,

Daniel

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Giuseppe Carrà

30 Jan 2020

Self-reported negative outcomes of psilocybin users: A quantitative textual analysis

PONE-D-19-25745R1

Dear Daniel,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Giuseppe

Giuseppe Carrà, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Giuseppe Carrà

5 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-25745R1

Self-reported negative outcomes of psilocybin users: A quantitative textual analysis

Dear Dr. Mograbi:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Giuseppe Carrà

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The article analyses data already publicly available at www.erowid.org.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES