ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology reports2025
NSW cannabis medicines advisory service retrospective enquiry analysis to inform clinical guidance resource development.
Article in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- NSW cannabis medicines advisory service retrospective enquiry analysis to inform clinical guidance resource development.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn innovative New South Wales government funded statewide Cannabis Medicines Advisory Service (CMAS) operated between January 2018 and June 2022. The service provided comprehensive patient-specific and evidence-based information to support health professionals in prescribing and patient care decisions. This study aimed to describe real-world data collected by CMAS.
methodsA sub-set of de-identified, patient-specific enquiries collected between January 2021 and June 2022 (n = 123/567; 21.7%) were analyzed using R version 4.2.1. Diagnosis, indication, and comorbidities were coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology.
resultsMost patient-specific enquiries from medical practitioners were from general practitioners (n = 103/123; 83.7%). Female (n = 53/123; 43.1%) and male (n = 59/123; 48.0%) patients were similarly represented. Sex was not specified for 8.9% (n = 11/123) of patients. The mean age of patients was 52.1 years (range <10-90). The most common three diagnoses were osteoarthritis, anxiety, and chronic pain. Indications that were most frequently reported included chronic pain, anxiety, back pain, non-neuropathic pain, and insomnia. Comedications were most commonly non-opioid and opioid analgesics and antidepressants. Most practitioners were considering prescribing a cannabidiol (CBD) product for their patient. Cannabinoid composition selection guidance provided by CMAS was predominantly (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) THC:CBD ~1:1, followed by CBD-only products. CMAS was contacted by health professionals regarding the management of potential adverse events for five patients.
conclusionThe findings of this study shed light on the information medical practitioners were seeking to inform their clinical decision-making about medical cannabis and can inform the development of clinical guidance resources.
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.