Dissociative states, characterised by discontinuities in awareness and perception, occur in a diverse array of psychiatric disorders and contexts. Dissociative states have been modeled in the laboratory through various induction methods but relatively little is known about the efficacy and comparability of different experimental methods. This meta-analysis quantified dissociative states, as indexed by a standardised instrument (Clinician Administered Dissociative States Scale), at baseline in varied diagnostic groups and in response to different experimental induction methods (psychological techniques and pharmacological agents) in both clinical and non-clinical samples. Primary outcomes were state dissociation effect sizes (Hedges's g) (PROSPERO registration CRD42022384886). 2,214 papers were screened, yielding 150 eligible articles and 251 effect sizes comprising 7,190 individuals. High levels of baseline state dissociation were observed in multiple diagnostic groups relative to controls, with the largest effects found in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In controlled experiments, induced state dissociation was most pronounced in response to mirror-gazing, ayahuasca, ketamine, cannabis, MDMA, and nitrous oxide relative, with effects comparable to or exceeding baseline state dissociation in PTSD. The effect sizes were characterised by pronounced heterogeneity but were not reliably associated with methodological features of the original studies. Elevated state dissociation is present in multiple diagnostic groups and comparable or higher levels can be reliably induced in controlled experiments using psychological techniques and pharmacological agents. These results demonstrate the efficacy of several methods for experimentally modelling dissociation and have implications for measuring adverse events and predicting outcomes in clinical interventions involving pharmacological agents.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

LW is supported by the Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London. SP is supported by a Medical Research Council Fellowship. SKK is supported by the Medical Research Council (UK). DBT is supported by the Gyllenbergs Foundation.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The data were openly available prior to conducting the meta-analysis and are available by accessing the original papers.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data are available in the Supplementary Data file as well as the original papers.