ArticlePharmacopsychiatry2024
Medicinal Use of Different Cannabis Strains: Results from a Large Prospective Survey in Germany.
Article in Pharmacopsychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Same-Day Sedative and Night-Time Sleep Effects Following Combined Cannabinoid Formulations: A Randomised-Controlled Trial.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Trial
- International Policy Approaches for Higher THC Cannabis Products: Are They Applicable to the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Framework?Drug and alcohol review · 2026Review
- Barriers to accessing prescribed medical cannabis: qualitative insights from people using non-prescribed cannabis for medicinal purposes in the Netherlands.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Medicinal use of non-prescribed cannabis: a cross-sectional survey on patterns of use, motives for use, and treatment access in the Netherlands.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Selected Mental Illnesses: Practical Approach and Overview of the Literature.Pharmacopsychiatry · 2024Review
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUp to now, it is unclear whether different medicinal
methodsThis was an online survey conducted in Germany between June 2020 and August 2020. Patients were allowed to participate only if they received a
resultsThe survey was completed by n=1,028 participants. Most participants (58%) have used MC for more than 1 year, on average, 5.9 different strains.
conclusionsPatients self-reported very good efficacy and tolerability of MC. There was no evidence suggesting that specific MC strains are superior depending on the disease to be treated.
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.