ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
How can we facilitate research on the risks and potential benefits of novel psychoactive substances?
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are synthetic compounds designed to mimic illicit drugs while circumventing international drug regulations. Commonly marketed as "research chemicals" or "legal highs", these substances remain poorly understood, with limited evidence regarding their pharmacology, risks, and therapeutic potential. Current drug policies often place NPS in the strictest legal schedules, restricting the clinical and pharmacological research needed to assess both harms and possible medical benefits. This paper advocates for a public health-oriented regulatory framework that balances harm reduction with controlled scientific access. Existing clinical evidence indicates that some NPS present significant risks, whereas others may possess therapeutic value. To address this complexity, an evidence-based four-stage scheduling framework is proposed: Early Surveillance to identify emerging substances and harms; Provisional Scheduling to permit access to regulated research; Controlled Research to investigate pharmacology, safety, subjective and neurocognitive effects, abuse liability, and therapeutic potential; and Reclassification based on integrated clinical, toxicological, and public health evidence. This approach would reduce research barriers and support more adaptive, evidence-based regulation and more balanced drug policies. Funding: None.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.