Back

MDMA-Assisted Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial Incremental Effects Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Borgogna, N. C.; Whittington, D. D.; Owen, T.; Petrovitch, D.; Vaughn, J.; Struble, C.; Pagano, L. A.; Aita, S. L.; Hill, B. D.

2026-05-20 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.05.05.26352468 medRxiv
Show abstract

Mental illness poses a substantial global burden, yet existing psychotherapies and psychopharmacologies often produce limited outcomes. Psychedelic assisted therapies have emerged as potential transdiagnostic interventions. In particular, 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine assisted therapy (MDMA AT) has generated interest for its rapid psychological effects and potential to enhance psychotherapy outcomes. However, the incremental efficacy of MDMA AT relative to control interventions across transdiagnostic outcomes remains unclear. Further, there have been emerging concerns regarding harm reporting quality in MDMA AT clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis of MDMA AT randomized controlled trials. Eleven publications representing eight controlled trials with 10 analyzed subgroups (n = 295 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Two additional secondary publications were included for harm reporting syntheses (k = 13 total). Across 114 extracted effect sizes, MDMA AT demonstrated a significant moderate-to-large incremental reduction in psychopathology relative to controls (g = 1.03, 95% CI [0.46, 1.60]), though heterogeneity was high (I squared = 76%). Incremental effects were larger versus inert placebos (g = 1.27) than active controls (g = 0.75). Symptom specific analyses indicated strong incremental effects for trauma reduction (g=1.46 [95% CI: 0.67, 2.25]) and smaller non-significant effects for depression (g=0.51 [95% CI: -0.06, 1.08]). Harm reporting quality synthesis showed only 23% of publications met high-quality reporting standards. Overall, MDMA AT demonstrates potential transdiagnostic efficacy, but small samples, confounding factors, and mediocre harm reporting highlight the need for larger more transparent clinical trials.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.8%
2
Neuropsychopharmacology
134 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.0%
3
European Neuropsychopharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
4
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
5
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
6
JAMA Psychiatry
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
7
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
8
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
9
Journal of Psychopharmacology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
10
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
11
Molecular Psychiatry
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
Journal of Psychiatric Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
14
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.6%
16
Schizophrenia Bulletin
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.6%
18
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
19
Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science
54 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
20
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
21
International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
22
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
62 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
23
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
24
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
25
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
26
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.2%
27
American Journal of Psychiatry
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
28
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
29
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
30
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%