Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33790818›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2021

Duration of Neurocognitive Impairment With Medical Cannabis Use: A Scoping Review.

Lauren Eadie, Lindsay A Lo, April Christiansen, Jeffrey R Brubacher, Alasdair M Barr, William J Panenka, Caroline A MacCallum

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Does acute cannabidiol (CBD) use impair performance? A meta-analysis and comparison with placebo and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Lauren EadieDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lindsay A LoDepartment of Psychology, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
April ChristiansenCentre for Neuroscience Studies, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Jeffrey R BrubacherDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Alasdair M BarrDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
William J PanenkaBritish Columbia Mental Health and Substance Use Services Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Caroline A MacCallumDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAQueen's University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the recreational use of cannabis has well-established dose-dependent effects on neurocognitive and psychomotor functioning, there is little consensus on the degree and duration of impairment typically seen with medical marijuana use. Compared to recreational cannabis users, medical cannabis patients have distinct characteristics that may modify the presence and extent of impairment. The goal of this review was to determine the duration of acute neurocognitive impairment associated with medical cannabis use, and to identify differences between medical cannabis patients and recreational users. These findings are used to gain insight on how medical professionals can best advise medical cannabis patients with regards to automobile driving or safety-sensitive tasks at work. A systematic electronic search for English language randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical trials and systematic reviews (in order to capture any potentially missed RCTs) between 2000 and 2019 was conducted through Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases using MeSH terms. Articles were limited to medical cannabis patients using cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain or spasticity. After screening titles and abstracts, 37 relevant studies were subjected to full-text review. Overall, seven controlled trials met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis: six RCTs and one observational clinical trial. Neurocognitive testing varied significantly between all studies, including the specific tests administered and the timing of assessments post-cannabis consumption. In general, cognitive performance declined mostly in a THC dose-dependent manner, with steady resolution of impairment in the hours following THC administration. Doses of THC were lower than those typically reported in recreational cannabis studies. In all the studies, there was no difference between any of the THC groups and placebo on any neurocognitive measure after 4 h of recovery. Variability in the dose-dependent relationship raises the consideration that there are other important factors contributing to the duration of neurocognitive impairment besides the dose of THC ingested. These modifiable and non-modifiable factors are individually discussed.

Indexed as

cannabidiolcannabinoidscognitionimpairmentintoxicationmedical cannabispaintetrahydrocannabinol

Identifiers

PMID33790818
PMCPMC8006301
OpenAlexW3138582354

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.