Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28733813›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2017

Individual and combined effects of cannabis and tobacco on drug reward processing in non-dependent users.

Chandni Hindocha, Will Lawn, Tom P Freeman, H Valerie Curran

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Assessing Cannabis Demand: A Comprehensive Review of the Marijuana Purchase Task.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020
    Review
  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

4 authors.

Chandni HindochaClinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. c.hindocha@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1692-7401
Will LawnClinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Tom P FreemanClinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
H Valerie CurranClinical Psychopharmacology Unit, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleCannabis and tobacco are often smoked simultaneously in joints, and this practice may increase the risks of developing tobacco and/or cannabis use disorders. Currently, there is no human experimental research on how these drugs interact on addiction-related measures.

objectivesThis study aimed to investigate how cannabis and tobacco, each alone and combined together in joints, affected individuals' demand for cannabis puffs and cigarettes, explicit liking of drug and non-drug-related stimuli and craving.

methodA double-blind, 2 (active cannabis, placebo cannabis) × 2 (active tobacco, placebo tobacco) crossover design was used with 24 non-dependent cannabis and tobacco smokers. They completed a pleasantness rating task (PRT), a marijuana purchase task (MPT) and a cigarette purchase task (CPT) alongside measures of craving pre- and post-drug administration.

resultsRelative to placebo cannabis, active cannabis reduced liking of cannabis-associated stimuli and increased response time to all stimuli except cigarette-related stimuli. Relative to placebo cannabis, active cannabis decreased demand for cannabis puffs (trends for breakpoint and elasticity) and cigarettes (breakpoint, P

conclusionsAcutely, cannabis reduced liking of cannabis-related stimuli and demand for cannabis itself. Acute cannabis also reduced demand for cigarettes on the CPT. Acute tobacco administration did not affect demand or pleasantness ratings for cigarettes themselves or cannabis. In non-dependent cannabis and tobacco co-users, tobacco did not influence the rewarding effects of cannabis.

Indexed as

RewardAdultBehavior, AddictiveCravingCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodDronabinolDrug SynergismFemaleHumansMaleMarijuana AbuseMarijuana SmokingMotivationNicotineReaction TimeDronabinolNicotineBehavioural economicsCannabisCo-administrationCravingLikingRewardTobacco

Identifiers

PMID28733813
PMCPMC5660839

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.