Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31541311›Full record

ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2019

[Position paper on medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines in pain medicine].

Frank Petzke, Matthias Karst, Knud Gastmeier, Lukas Radbruch, Eva Steffen, Winfried Häuser, Ad-hoc-Kommission der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft „Cannabis in der Medizin“

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [How long does a long-term therapy last?]Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Frank PetzkeSchmerzmedizin, Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 50935, Göttingen, Deutschland. frank.petzke@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Matthias KarstKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Schmerzambulanz, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland.
Knud GastmeierSpezielle Schmerztherapie und Palliativmedizin, Praxis für Anästhesie, Potsdam, Deutschland.
Lukas RadbruchKlinik für Palliativmedizin, Universitätsklinik Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
Eva SteffenDRK Schmerz-Zentrum Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland.
Winfried HäuserMedizinisches Versorgungszentrum für Schmerzmedizin und seelische Gesundheit, Saarbrücken-St. Johann, Saarbrücken, Deutschland.
Ad-hoc-Kommission der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft „Cannabis in der Medizin“
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity Hospital Bonn · DECenter for HIV and Hepatogastroenterology · DEMedizinisches Versorgungszentrum Prof. Mathey, Prof. Schofer · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since March 2017, the prescription of medical cannabis at the expense of the statutory health insurance is possible after approval by the respective medical services. Chronic pain is the most common indication, as health claims data and the accompanying survey show. From the point of view of the law, a prescription is indicated in cases of serious illness, missing or not indicated established therapeutic approaches and a not entirely remote prospect of improvement of the illness or its symptoms. This describes a broader indication spectrum than can currently be based on randomised controlled clinical trials. There is weak evidence of low efficacy for neuropathic pain. For pain related to spasticity and cancer-related pain there is evidence of improvements in quality of life, but effects on pain are of little relevance. For all other indications, only an individual therapeutic trial can be justified based on the available external evidence. However, this usually corresponds to the demand of "a not entirely remote prospect" of a noticeably positive effect of medical cannabis. It is also problematic that almost no long-term studies for the application and efficacy of flowers and extracts are available.Current knowledge on the use of cannabis-based drugs and, more clearly, medical cannabis for chronic pain is insufficient. The increase in the number of countries with marketing authorisations or exemptions for medicinal cannabis or cannabis-based drugs for chronic pain will also pave the way for larger empirical and population-based studies that will further improve the evidence base of research and clinical use.

Indexed as

CannabisMedical MarijuanaPainAnalgesicsChronic PainHumansQuality of LifeAnalgesicsMedical MarijuanaCannabis-bases medicinesChronic painClinical recommendationsMedical cannabisNeuropathic

Identifiers

PMID31541311
OpenAlexW2973757909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.