ReviewInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2023
Measuring cannabis quantities in online surveys: A rapid review and proposals for ways forward.
Review in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-titration of cannabis consumption: An epidemiological perspective.Journal of psychiatric research · 2025Article
- Measuring cannabis quantities in online surveys: A rapid review and proposals for ways forward.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Review
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
objectivesCannabis use quantities are relevant for determining cannabis-related harms. This research aims to provide an overview of the available methods to assess quantities through self-report.
methodsA rapid review of various strategies to collect information on cannabis use quantities through self-report. Two independent literature searches resulted in n = 38 studies included for review.
resultsA total of n = 14 studies employed methods for collecting cannabis use quantities that are not suitable for online surveys (e.g., rolling a fake joint). Of the remaining n = 24 studies with items that are suitable for online surveys, the quantity assessment was performed in three different ways. The data collection was either carried out by asking (a) for the total number of joints (i.e., crude joint method), (b) for the total weight (i.e., crude weight method), or (c) for specific products separately, for example, for the amount of flower and resin (i.e., product-specific method). In only n = 8 studies, cannabis use quantities were ascertained by providing visual aids (e.g., illustration of various amounts of flower).
conclusionsThe crude joint method and the product-specific method are the two most promising methods to collect information on cannabis use quantities. Using visual aids may potentially improve the accuracy of those methods.
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.