ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2020
Exploring the Use of State Medical Cannabis Legislation as a Proxy for Medical Cannabis Use Among Patients Receiving Chemotherapy.
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementThe use of medical cannabis is expanding in the USA. Due to conflicting, low-quality evidence, many oncologists may not feel confident to recommend it to patients. Given the potential for legal and financial risks when conducting clinical trials with medical cannabis, the use of observational data should be explored. Observational data that directly capture medical cannabis use in relation to prescription medications and track the prevalence and patterns of cannabis use is sparse. To gain insights into the role medical cannabis plays in the pharmaceutical landscape, proxies such as cannabis legislation need to be explored. In the context of recommendation-nonadherent antiemetic prescribing among patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, medical cannabis may be a suitable alternative to an antiemetic in states that allow medical cannabis. Findings suggest that legislation may impact the use of certain antiemetics in states with cannabis legislation in place. The presence or absence of legislation regarding medical cannabis use may serve as an early, observable surrogate marker of medical cannabis use in the community. In light of the paucity of clinical trials and observational datasets that capture cannabis use, there remains a tremendous need for the development of methodologies or standardized datasets that appropriately and reliably capture the use of medical cannabis to facilitate research into its clinical application and effect on prescription medication use. Standardizing the reporting and destigmatizing use could eliminate the dependence upon proxy measures as a substitute for more extensive data and go a long way in improving data capture, thus allowing us to generate knowledge and hypotheses from observational data until research conditions improve and allow for expanded clinical trials involving medical cannabis.
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.