Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31165913›Full record

SynthesisPsychopharmacology2019

The effects of cannabinoid 1 receptor compounds on memory: a meta-analysis and systematic review across species.

Faith Borgan, Katherine Beck, Emma Butler, Robert McCutcheon, Mattia Veronese, Anthony Vernon, Oliver D Howes

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exploring Cannabinoid Effects Using Zebrafish (International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Cannabinoids: Role in Neurological Diseases and Psychiatric Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  8. Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Faith BorganDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park Road, London, SE5 8AF, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5017-5226
Katherine BeckDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park Road, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Emma ButlerDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park Road, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Robert McCutcheonDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park Road, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Mattia VeroneseCentre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Anthony VernonDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Oliver D HowesDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park Road, London, SE5 8AF, UK. oliver.howes@kcl.ac.uk.
King's College London · GBWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700995Medical Research Council MC_U120097115Medical Research Council MR/L022176/1Medical Research Council MR/N025377/1Medical Research Council MR/N026063/1Medical Research Council MR/N027078/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleWhile cannabis-based medicinal products have been shown to be effective for numerous neurological and psychiatric disorders, the evidence base regarding their adverse cognitive effects is poorly understood. The cannabinoid 1 receptor modulates memory performance via intracellular and extracellular mechanisms that alter synaptic transmission and plasticity. While previous literature has consistently shown that chronic cannabis users exhibit marked cognitive impairments, mixed findings have been reported in the context of placebo-controlled experimental trials. It is therefore unclear whether these compounds inherently alter cognitive processes or whether individuals who are genetically predisposed to use cannabis may have underlying cognitive deficits.

objectiveWe conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of full and partial cannabinoid 1 receptor (CB1R) agonists, antagonists, and negative allosteric modulators on non-spatial and spatial memory.

methodsIn accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched for studies examining the effects of CB1R agonists, antagonists, and negative allosteric modulators on memory performance.

resultsWe systematically reviewed 195 studies investigating the effects of cannabinoid compounds on memory. In humans (N = 35 studies, comprising N = 782 subjects), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (1.5-5 mg/kg) relative to placebo impaired performance on non-spatial memory tests, whereas only high THC doses (67 mg/kg) impaired spatial memory. Similarly, THC (0.2-4 mg/kg) significantly impaired visuospatial memory in monkeys and non-human primates (N = 8 studies, comprising N = 71 subjects). However, acute THC (0.002-10 mg/kg) had no effect on non-spatial (N = 6 studies, comprising 117 subjects; g = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.18 to 3.63, p = 0.08) or spatial memory (9 studies, comprising 206 subjects; g = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.09 to 2.58, p = 0.43). However, acute, full CB1R agonists significantly impaired non-spatial memory (N = 23 studies, 519 subjects; g = - 1.39, 95% CI - 2.72 to - 0.06, p = 0.03). By contrast, the chronic administration of CB1R agonists had no effect on non-spatial memory (N = 5 studies, comprising 146 subjects; g = - 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.32 to 1.22, p = 0.94). Moreover, the acute administration of CB1R antagonists had no effect on non-spatial memory in rodents (N = 9 studies, N = 149 subjects; g = 0.40, 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.92, p = 0.12).

conclusionsThe acute administration of THC, partial CB1R agonist, significantly impaired non-spatial memory in humans, monkeys, and non-human primates but not rodents. However, full CB1R agonists significantly impaired non-spatial memory in a dose-dependent manner but CB1R antagonists had no effect on non-spatial memory in rodents. Moreover, chronic THC administration did not significantly impair spatial or non-spatial memory in rodents, and there is inconclusive evidence on this in humans. Our findings highlight species differences in the effects of cannabinoid compounds on memory.

Indexed as

AnimalsCannabinoidsCognitionCognition DisordersDronabinolHumansMemoryReceptor, Cannabinoid, CB1Species SpecificitySynaptic TransmissionCannabinoidsDronabinolReceptor, Cannabinoid, CB1Cannabinoid 1 receptorCB1R agonistsCB1R antagonistsCognitionMemory

Identifiers

PMID31165913
PMCPMC6828623
OpenAlexW2948139953

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.