Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36626363›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Cannabis companies and the sponsorship of scientific research: A cross-sectional Canadian case study.

Quinn Grundy, Daphne Imahori, Shreya Mahajan, Gord Garner, Roberta Timothy, Abhimanyu Sud, Sophie Soklaridis, Daniel Z Buchman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Pain Research and Treatment: Policy Implications.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Quinn GrundyLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7640-8614
Daphne ImahoriCentre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Ontario, Canada.
Shreya MahajanCentre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Ontario, Canada.
Gord GarnerCommunity Addictions Peer Support Association (CAPSA), Ottawa, Canada.
Roberta TimothyDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abhimanyu SudTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8354-6153
Sophie SoklaridisCentre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Ontario, Canada.
Daniel Z BuchmanCentre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Ontario, Canada.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAUniversity of Toronto · CACanadian Psychological Association · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry's involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the "funding effect" on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.

Indexed as

CannabisResearch Support as TopicCanadaConflict of InterestCross-Sectional StudiesFoodHumansIndustryMale

Identifiers

PMID36626363
PMCPMC9831296
OpenAlexW4315436085

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.