ArticleACR open rheumatology2023
Medicinal Cannabis Use for Rheumatic Conditions in the US Versus Canada: Rationale for Use and Patient-Health Care Provider Interactions.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High acceptance and reported efficacy of cannabis for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases in Germany: a postlegalisation survey.EULAR rheumatology open · 2025Article
- Substituting Medical Cannabis for Medications Among Patients with Rheumatic Conditions in the United States and Canada.ACR open rheumatology · 2024Article
- The Elusive Truth of Cannabinoids for Rheumatic Pain.Current rheumatology reports · 2024Review
- Cannabis-related information sources among US residents: A probability-weighted nationally representative survey.Journal of cannabis research · 2024Article
- Cannabinoids dosing for osteoarthritis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Cannabis Use in Arthritis: Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life.Medical cannabis and cannabinoidsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding how medical cannabis (MC) use is integrated into medical practice for rheumatic disease management is essential. We characterized rationale for MC use, patient-physician interactions around MC, and MC use patterns among people with rheumatic conditions in the US and Canada.
methodsWe surveyed 3406 participants with rheumatic conditions in the US and Canada, with 1727 completing the survey (50.7% response rate). We assessed disclosure of MC use to health care providers, MC authorization by health care providers, and MC use patterns and investigated factors associated with MC disclosure to health care providers in the US versus Canada.
resultsOverall, 54.9% of US respondents and 78.0% of Canadians reported past or current MC use, typically because of inadequate symptom relief from other medications. Compared to those in Canada, fewer US participants obtained MC licenses, disclosed MC use to their health care providers, or asked advice on how to use MC (all P values <0.001). Overall, 47.4% of Canadian versus 28.2% of US participants rated their medical professionals as their most trusted information source. MC legality in state of residence was associated with 2.49 greater odds of disclosing MC use to health care providers (95% confidence interval: 1.49-4.16, P < 0.001) in the US, whereas there were no factors associated with MC disclosure in Canada. Our study is limited by our convenience sampling strategy and cross-sectional design.
conclusionDespite widespread availability, MC is poorly integrated into rheumatic disease care, with most patients self-directing use with minimal or no clinical oversight. Concerted efforts to integrate MC into education and clinical policy is critical.
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.