Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27676176›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2016

A Public Health Framework for Legalized Retail Marijuana Based on the US Experience: Avoiding a New Tobacco Industry.

Rachel Ann Barry, Stanton Glantz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The importance of psychology for shaping legal cannabis regulation.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Considering the health and social welfare impacts of non-medical cannabis legalization.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rachel Ann BarryCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Stanton GlantzCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.

Funding

TOBACCO ADVOCACY AT THE STATE LEVELR01CA061021 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GLANTZ, STANTON ARNOLD · 1994 to 2015
$7.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA061021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rachel Barry and Stanton Glantz argue that a public health framework that prioritizes public health over business interests should be used by US states and countries that legalize retail marijuana.

Identifiers

PMID27676176
PMCPMC5038957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.