Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35620292›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2022

Medicinal Cannabis Prescribing in Australia: An Analysis of Trends Over the First Five Years.

Sara L MacPhail, Miguel A Bedoya-Pérez, Rhys Cohen, Vicki Kotsirilos, Iain S McGregor, Elizabeth A Cairns

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Colombian Medical Cannabis Paradox: A Scoping Review of Structural Barriers and Health Inequity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Using Cannabis and CBD to Sleep: An Updated Review.Current psychiatry reports · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Importance of Media Composition and Explant Type inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara L MacPhailThe Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Miguel A Bedoya-PérezThe Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rhys CohenSchool of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Vicki KotsirilosNICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Iain S McGregorThe Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Elizabeth A CairnsThe Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUMacquarie University · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A regulatory framework allowing legal access to medicinal cannabis (MC) products has operated in Australia since November 2016. MC prescribing by healthcare practitioners (HCPs) is primarily conducted through the Special Access Scheme - Category B (SAS-B) pathway, through which prescribers apply to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA-the federal regulator) for approval to prescribe a category of product to an individual patient suffering from a specific indication. The dataset collected by the TGA provides a unique opportunity to examine MC prescribing trends over time in the Australian population. Here we analysed this TGA SAS-B dataset since inception with respect to age, gender, product type (e.g., oil, flower, etc.), CBD content, indication treated, and prescriber location. Results are presented descriptively as well as being analysed using non-linear regression models. Relationship between variables were explored via correspondence analyses. Indications were classified with reference to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10th Revision). As of 31 August 2021, a total of 159,665 SAS-B approvals had been issued for MC products, 82.4% of were since January 2020. Leading indications for approvals were for pain, anxiety, and sleep disorders. Oil products were the most popular product type, while CBD-dominant products (≥98% CBD) accounted for 25.1% of total approvals. Approvals for flower products increased markedly during 2020-2021, as did approvals involving younger age groups (18-31 years old), male patients, and non-CBD dominant products. A disproportionate number of SAS-B MC applications (around 50%) came from HCPs in the state of Queensland. Associations between patient gender and age and/or indication with product type were found. For example, approvals for oil products were commonly associated with approvals for pain. While, overall prescribing increased dramatically over the last 2 years of analysis, stabilization of approval numbers is evident for some indications, such as pain. Current prescribing practices do not always reflect provided TGA guidance documents for MC prescribing. While acknowledging some limitations around the SAS-B dataset, it provides a unique and valuable resource with which to better understand current prescribing practices and utilisation of MC products within Australia.

Indexed as

Australiaauthorised prescriber schemecannabinoidmedicinal cannabisprescribing trendsregulationspecial access schemetherapeutic goods administration (TGA)

Identifiers

PMID35620292
PMCPMC9127064
OpenAlexW4229447616

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.