Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34590359›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022

The International Cannabis Toolkit (iCannToolkit): a multidisciplinary expert consensus on minimum standards for measuring cannabis use.

Valentina Lorenzetti, Chandni Hindocha, Kat Petrilli, Paul Griffiths, Jamie Brown, Álvaro Castillo-Carniglia, Jonathan P Caulkins, Amir Englund, Mahmoud A ElSohly, Suzanne H Gage and 15 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Valentina LorenzettiNeuroscience of Addiction and Mental Health Program, the Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5917-7068
Chandni HindochaClinical Psychopharmacology Unit (CPU), University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1692-7401
Kat PetrilliAddiction and Mental Health Group (AIM), Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Paul GriffithsEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2844-3391
Jamie BrownBehavioural Science and Health Institute of Epidemiology and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2797-5428
Álvaro Castillo-CarnigliaSociety and Health Research Center and School of Public Health, Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-3016-890X
Jonathan P CaulkinsCarnegie Mellon University Heinz College, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7748-9989
Amir EnglundAddictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2478-209X
Mahmoud A ElSohlyNational Center for Natural Products Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0019-2001
Suzanne H GageDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2368-1115
Teodora GroshkovaEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Lisbon, Portugal.
Antoni GualPsychiatry Department, Neurosciences Institute, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, RTA, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7130-981X
David HammondSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8197-6010
Will LawnClinical Psychopharmacology Unit (CPU), University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0143-2724
Hugo López-PelayoPsychiatry Department, Neurosciences Institute, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, RTA, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3850-8374
Jakob MantheyCenter for Interdisciplinary Addiction Research (ZIS), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1231-3760
Claire MokryszClinical Psychopharmacology Unit (CPU), University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1970-8530
Rosalie Liccardo PaculaUSC Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6145-9865
Margriet van LaarTrimbos Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3977-126X
Ryan VandreyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6657-884X
Elle WadsworthSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0797-8493
Adam WinstockBehavioural Science and Health Institute of Epidemiology and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Wayne HallNational Addiction Centre, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1984-0096
H Valerie CurranClinical Psychopharmacology Unit (CPU), University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6011-6978
Tom P FreemanAddiction and Mental Health Group (AIM), Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5667-507X

Funding

Cancer Research UK 22962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe lack of an agreed international minimum approach to measuring cannabis use hinders the integration of multidisciplinary evidence on the psychosocial, neurocognitive, clinical and public health consequences of cannabis use.

methodsA group of 25 international expert cannabis researchers convened to discuss a multidisciplinary framework for minimum standards to measure cannabis use globally in diverse settings.

resultsThe expert-based consensus agreed upon a three-layered hierarchical framework. Each layer-universal measures, detailed self-report and biological measures-reflected different research priorities and minimum standards, costs and ease of implementation. Additional work is needed to develop valid and precise assessments.

conclusionsConsistent use of the proposed framework across research, public health, clinical practice and medical settings would facilitate harmonisation of international evidence on cannabis consumption, related harms and approaches to their mitigation.

Indexed as

CannabisCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansSelf ReportassessmentcannabisdoseiCanntoolkitmeasurementstandardisation

Identifiers

PMID34590359
PMCPMC9298052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.