ArticleCurrent drug research reviews2019
Navigating Blind in the Green Rush: Clinical Considerations and Harm Reduction Practices for Cannabis.
Article in Current drug research reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician responses to cannabis use during pregnancy and lactation: a systematic review and integrative mixed-methods research synthesis.Family practice · 2022Pooled it
- Reducing the harms of cannabis use in youth post-legalization: insights from Ontario youth, parents, and service providers.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- Cannabis-Derived Product Types, Flavors, and Compound Types From an E-Commerce Website.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Associations between cannabis policies and state-level specialty cannabis use disorder treatment in the United States, 2004-2019.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Article
- Expectancies of the Effects of Cannabis Use in Individuals with Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD).Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Patterns of cannabis use, perception of harm, and perceived impact of legislative change in an online sample of young adults from Lebanon: insight on recreational users versus dual motive users.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe United States has recently experienced extensive changes in state policy regarding the use of cannabis for recreational and medicinal purposes. Despite its rapidly increasing accessibility and social acceptance, there is a striking dearth of research on cannabis as a treatment for medical and psychological conditions. Research on cannabis is difficult to conduct as it is classified as a schedule I drug with high potential for abuse and currently no accepted medical use in treatment. As a result, no standard dosing procedures exist and the lack of conclusive scientific evidence has left clinical providers without evidence-based guidelines about if, when, and how to guide clients on using cannabis safely.
objectiveTo (1) provide critical psychoeducational information about cannabis and cannabis problems to guide client-provider conversations about cannabis use and (2) describe common clinical concerns around cannabis use, highlight special considerations for vulnerable populations, and review harm reduction techniques and practical resources that may help clinicians and their clients navigate safer cannabis use.
conclusionThe removal of regulatory barriers would enable researchers to address key public health questions about the potential therapeutic and adverse effects of cannabis use. Additionally, funds for research, clinician education, and public health education initiatives are necessary to reduce risk around cannabis use in the United States.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.