Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29468763›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2018

Medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aaron L Sarvet, Melanie M Wall, David S Fink, Emily Greene, Aline Le, Anne E Boustead, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Katherine M Keyes, Magdalena Cerdá, Sandro Galea and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. How tax structures for retail cannabis shape cannabis use among youth and young adults: evidence from a volumetric choice experiment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Why are the police against drug policy liberalisation?Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Aaron L SarvetDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Melanie M WallDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
David S FinkDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1531-1525
Emily GreeneDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Aline LeNew York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Anne E BousteadSchool of Government and Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Rosalie Liccardo PaculaRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Katherine M KeyesDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5624-021X
Magdalena CerdáDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Sandro GaleaBoston School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Deborah S HasinDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6533-7021

Funding

Substance Abuse Epidemiology Training Program (SAETP) at Columbia UniversityT32DA031099 · NIDA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DEBORAH S HASIN, Silvia Saboia Martins · 2012 to 2026
$6.1M
State medical marijuana laws and MTF teen marijuana use and attitudes since 1991R01DA034244 · NIDA · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI HASIN, DEBORAH S · 2012 to 2016
$3.0M
Health and social consequences of national marijuana legalizationR01DA040924 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI CERDA, MAGDALENA · 2016 to 2019
$1.3M
Race, alcohol consumption and vehicle crashes: an epidemiologic paradoxK01AA021511 · NIAAA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI KEYES, KATHERINE M. · 2013 to 2017
$904k
Trajectories of Substance Use and Comorbid Mental IllnessK01DA030449 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI CERDA, MAGDALENA · 2011 to 2015
$897k
NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA021511NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA030449NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034244NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA040924NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA031099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in order to estimate the effect of US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on past-month marijuana use prevalence among adolescents.

methodsA total of 2999 papers from 17 literature sources were screened systematically. Eleven studies, developed from four ongoing large national surveys, were meta-analyzed. Estimates of MML effects on any past-month marijuana use prevalence from included studies were obtained from comparisons of pre-post MML changes in MML states to changes in non-MML states over comparable time-periods. These estimates were standardized and entered into a meta-analysis model with fixed-effects for each study. Heterogeneity among the study estimates by national data survey was tested with an omnibus F-test. Estimates of effects on additional marijuana outcomes, of MML provisions (e.g. dispensaries) and among demographic subgroups were abstracted and summarized. Key methodological and modeling characteristics were also described. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

resultsNone of the 11 studies found significant estimates of pre-post MML changes compared with contemporaneous changes in non-MML states for marijuana use prevalence among adolescents. The meta-analysis yielded a non-significant pooled estimate (standardized mean difference) of -0.003 (95% confidence interval = -0.012, +0.007). Four studies compared MML with non-MML states on pre-MML differences and all found higher rates of past-month marijuana use in MML states pre-MML passage. Additional tests of specific MML provisions, of MML effects on additional marijuana outcomes and among subgroups generally yielded non-significant results, although limited heterogeneity may warrant further study.

conclusionsSynthesis of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that US medical marijuana laws (MMLs) until 2014 have led to increases in adolescent marijuana use prevalence. Limited heterogeneity exists among estimates of effects of MMLs on other patterns of marijuana use, of effects within particular population subgroups and of effects of specific MML provisions.

Indexed as

Adolescent BehaviorMedical MarijuanaAdolescentHumansLegislation, DrugMarijuana UsePrevalenceUnited StatesMedical MarijuanaAdolescentepidemiologymarijuanameta-analysispolicysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29468763
PMCPMC5942879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.