ArticleJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
A randomized controlled trial of brief intervention for patients with cannabis use disorder.
Article in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Effective interventions for cannabis use disorders are fairly limited. The present randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the reduction in cannabis use (number of days cannabis used) with brief intervention and simple advice in patients with cannabis use disorder. Materials and Methods: This non-blinded and parallel two-group RCT included 100 male patients with cannabis use disorder. A semi-structured pro forma and severity of dependence scale (SDS) were used. Participants were then randomized to either of the two arms (brief intervention and simple advice) in a 1:1 ratio. Cannabis use patterns and SDS scores were assessed over the phone at week 4, week 8, and week 12. Results: The two groups were comparable in sociodemographics and cannabis use characteristics. Participants in both groups were using cannabis for 30 days in the past month before enrolment. The brief intervention group had a lesser number of days of cannabis use vis-a-vis the simple advice group at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. There was a significant time effect for change in SDS scores (F = 30.629, Conclusion: In this population of regular cannabis users, brief intervention may be useful in reducing cannabis usage. It can be integrated into routine assessments and management of those with regular use of cannabis.
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.