ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Δ
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study of Oral Cannabidiol and Tetrahydrocannabinol for Essential Tremor.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Trial
- Ireland-Claisen Rearrangement as a Stereocontrolled Bond-Construction Strategy in Natural Product Total Synthesis.ACS omega · 2026Review
- Cannabis-Based Nanolipid Formulations for Pain Management.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Navigating dose-effect complexities and challenges in cannabinoid therapy for aging-related neurobiological changes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Phytocannabinoids as Novel SGLT2 Modulators for Renal Glucose Reabsorption in Type 2 Diabetes Management.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Exploring the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in cancer by modulating signaling pathways and addressing clinical challenges.Discover oncology · 2024Review
- Green rush and red warnings: Retrospective chart review of adverse events of interactions between cannabinoids and psychotropic drugs.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this overview, we seek to appraise recent experimental and observational studies investigating THC and its potential role as adjunctive therapy in various medical illnesses. Recent clinical trials are suggestive of the diverse pharmacologic potentials for THC but suffer from small sample sizes, short study duration, failure to address tolerance, little dose variation, ill-defined outcome measures, and failure to identify and/or evaluate confounds, all of which may constitute significant threats to the validity of most trials. However, the existing work underscores the potential therapeutic value of THC and, at the same time, calls attention to the critical need for better-designed protocols to fully explore and demonstrate safety and efficacy. In the most general sense, the present brief review illuminates some intriguing findings about THC, along with the basic threats to the validity of the research that supports those findings. The intent is to highlight existing generic weaknesses in the existing randomized controlled trial literature and, most importantly, provide guidance for improved clinical research.
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.