Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37821096›Full record

Trial reportAddiction (Abingdon, England)2024

Cannabidiol does not attenuate acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced attentional bias in healthy volunteers: A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study.

Dominic Oliver, Amir Englund, Edward Chesney, Lucy Chester, Jack Wilson, Simina Sovi, Stina Wigroth, John Hodsoll, John Strang, Robin M Murray and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Dominic OliverDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8920-3407
Amir EnglundDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2478-209X
Edward ChesneyDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2851-5252
Lucy ChesterDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7813-0281
Jack WilsonThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, Level 6, Jane Foss Russell Building, G02, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-1731
Simina SoviDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Stina WigrothAddictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
John HodsollDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
John StrangAddictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5413-2725
Robin M MurrayDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0829-0519
Tom P FreemanAddictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5667-507X
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3582-6788
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4381-0532
King's College London · GBNational Health Service · GBThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P006841/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo test how attentional bias and explicit liking are influenced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and whether these effects are moderated by cannabidiol (CBD).

designDouble-blind, randomised, within-subjects cross-over study.

settingNIHR Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility at King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS/CASES: Forty-six infrequent cannabis users (cannabis use <1 per week). INTERVENTION(S): Across four sessions, participants inhaled vaporised cannabis containing 10 mg of THC and either 0 mg (0:1 CBD:THC), 10 mg (1:1), 20 mg (2:1) or 30 mg (3:1) of CBD, administered in a randomised order and counter-balanced across participants (a total of 24 order groups). MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed two tasks: (1) Attentional Bias (AB), comparing reaction times toward visual probes presented behind 28 target stimuli (cannabis/food) compared with probes behind corresponding non-target (neutral) stimuli. Participants responding more quickly to probes behind target than non-target stimuli would indicate greater attentional bias to cannabis/food; (2) Picture Rating (PR), where all AB stimuli were rated on a 7-point pleasantness scale, measuring explicit liking.

findingsDuring the AB task, participants were more biased toward cannabis stimuli in the 0:1 condition compared with baseline (mean difference = 12.2, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 1.20-23.3, d = 0.41, P = 0.03). No other significant AB or PR differences were found between cannabis and food stimuli between baseline and 0:1 condition (P > 0.05). No significant CBD effect was found on AB or PR task performance at any dose (P > 0.05). There was additionally no cumulative effect of THC exposure on AB or PR outcomes (P > 0.05).

conclusionsA double-blind, randomised, cross-over study among infrequent cannabis users found that inhaled delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol increased attentional bias toward cannabis in the absence of explicit liking, a marker of liability toward cannabis use disorder. At the concentrations normally found in legal and illegal cannabis, cannabidiol had no influence on this effect.

Indexed as

Attentional BiasCannabidiolDronabinolCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsCannabisCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodHallucinogensHumansCannabidiolCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsDronabinolHallucinogensattentional biascannabidiolcannabiscannabis use disorderCBDdelta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolTHC

Identifiers

PMID37821096
PMCPMC10952555
OpenAlexW4387563843

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.