Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34936167›Full record

Trial reportAddiction biology2022

Sex differences in acute cannabis effects revisited: Results from two randomized, controlled trials.

Thomas R Arkell, Richard C Kevin, Frederick Vinckenbosch, Nicholas Lintzeris, Eef Theunissen, Johannes G Ramaekers, Iain S McGregor

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cys-loop receptors on cannabinoids: All high?Frontiers in physiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Effect of CannEpilJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Use of Compounds Derived fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Effects of acute ΔBrain research · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 countries.

Thomas R ArkellLambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8559-6995
Richard C KevinLambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Frederick VinckenboschFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicholas LintzerisFaculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5229-8257
Eef TheunissenFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Johannes G RamaekersFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4553-376X
Iain S McGregorLambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9307-7159
The University of Sydney · AUMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some evidence suggests that males and females may differ in their responses to acute cannabis effects, including subjective drug effects and behavioural effects, and cannabinoid pharmacokinetics. This is significant given current changes to cannabis-related policies and, in consequence, increased cannabis accessibility. The present study combines data from two randomized controlled trials to investigate possible differences among males (n = 21) and females (n = 19) in the acute effects of vaporized cannabis containing 13.75 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), with and without cannabidiol (CBD; 13.75 mg). To control for differences in the timing of assessments, peak (or peak change from baseline) scores were calculated for a range of measures including subjective drug effects, cognitive performance, cardiovascular effects, and plasma concentrations of THC, CBD, and their respective primary metabolites. While THC elicited robust and significant changes in all but one outcome measure relative to placebo, relatively few sex differences were observed after controlling for BMI and plasma THC concentrations. Relative to females, males performed better overall on a divided attention task (DAT) and had higher peak plasma concentrations of 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (11-COOH-THC). Males and females did not differ with respect to plasma concentrations of any other analyte, subjective drug effects, or cardiovascular measures. These data indicate an absence of systematic sex differences in acute cannabis effects given a moderate dose of vaporized cannabis. They do not preclude the possibility that sex differences may emerge with higher THC doses or with other commonly used routes of administration (e.g., orally administered oils or edibles).

Indexed as

CannabidiolCannabisDouble-Blind MethodDronabinolFemaleHumansMaleSex FactorsCannabidiolDronabinolcannabisCBDsex differencesTHC

Identifiers

PMID34936167
PMCPMC9286641
OpenAlexW4200584131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.