ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Implications for blinding in clinical trials with THC-containing cannabinoids based on the CANNA-TICS trial.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are Cannabis-Based Medicines a Useful Treatment for Neuropathic Pain? A Systematic Review.Biomolecules · 2025Pooled it
- Feasibility, Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of 1:1 THC:CBD Cannabis Oil for Fibromyalgia Symptoms: Results From a Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Trial.Pain research & management · 2026Trial
- Higher THC Concentration Medicinal Cannabis Products Efficacy and Safety Considerations: A Rapid Review.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Review
- Cannabis-Based Medicine for Neuropathic Pain and Spasticity-A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for clinical trials. While there are established standards to avoid unblinding, in RCTs using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) containing cannabinoids, however, accidental unblinding and intentional self-unbinding must be considered as a particular issue, since THC tests are widely available. To investigate unblinding rates in an RCT using a THC-containing cannabinoid, we re-contacted 54 out of 97 participants of the CANNA-TICS trial who had participated in our study center in Hannover. Of the 54 participants, 53 could be reached. Of these, one participant (2%) stated that she had unblinded herself intentionally during the treatment phase, and another three patients (6%) reported intentional unblinding after the end of the treatment. Noteworthy, two patients provided discrepant information and denied self-unblinding during the interview, although during study/clinic visits they had reported having done so. Thus, based on all available information, three participants (6%) unblinded themselves intentionally during the treatment phase and another three (6%) after the end of the treatment. Accidental unblinding during the treatment phase was reported by 4/54 participants (7%) (during study visits). Since one participant reported both intentional self-unblinding (during the interview) and accidental unblinding (during a study visit), the total unblinding rate was 17% (
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.