ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
Consumer-Generated Discourse on Cannabis as a Medicine: Scoping Review of Techniques.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Cannabis Dispensary Staff ("Budtender") Perspectives on Trustworthiness of Social Media Information: A Qualitative Study.Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Using Social Media Data to Investigate Public Perceptions of Cannabis as a Medicine: Narrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Barriers to opioid use disorder treatment: A comparison of self-reported information from social media with barriers found in literature.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedicinal cannabis is increasingly being used for a variety of physical and mental health conditions. Social media and web-based health platforms provide valuable, real-time, and cost-effective surveillance resources for gleaning insights regarding individuals who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. This is particularly important considering that the evidence for the optimal use of medicinal cannabis is still emerging. Despite the web-based marketing of medicinal cannabis to consumers, currently, there is no robust regulatory framework to measure clinical health benefits or individual experiences of adverse events. In a previous study, we conducted a systematic scoping review of studies that contained themes of the medicinal use of cannabis and used data from social media and search engine results. This study analyzed the methodological approaches and limitations of these studies.
objectiveWe aimed to examine research approaches and study methodologies that use web-based user-generated text to study the use of cannabis as a medicine.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases for primary studies in the English language from January 1974 to April 2022. Studies were included if they aimed to understand web-based user-generated text related to health conditions where cannabis is used as a medicine or where health was mentioned in general cannabis-related conversations.
resultsWe included 42 articles in this review. In these articles, Twitter was used 3 times more than other computer-generated sources, including Reddit, web-based forums, GoFundMe, YouTube, and Google Trends. Analytical methods included sentiment assessment, thematic analysis (manual and automatic), social network analysis, and geographic analysis.
conclusionsThis study is the first to review techniques used by research on consumer-generated text for understanding cannabis as a medicine. It is increasingly evident that consumer-generated data offer opportunities for a greater understanding of individual behavior and population health outcomes. However, research using these data has some limitations that include difficulties in establishing sample representativeness and a lack of methodological best practices. To address these limitations, deidentified annotated data sources should be made publicly available, researchers should determine the origins of posts (organizations, bots, power users, or ordinary individuals), and powerful analytical techniques should be used.
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.