ArticleJournal of cannabis research2025
Evaluation of cannabidiol-based products in Brazil: how can current regulations influence their labeling quality?
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2025. 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
There is concern about the quality of cannabis-based products used in Brazil, mainly cannabidiol (CBD). This study aimed to evaluate the quality of labeling on CBD products marketed in Brazil authorized by two regulations - N660/2022 on imported products and N327/2019 on products with temporary trade permits - and whether there were differences between them concerning four domains: prescription, good manufacturing practices (GMP), laboratory tests, and safety of use. Determined labeling quality was based on a score of 45 criteria divided per domain and weights from 1 to 3 (according to the relevance for users' and prescribers' safety) built by public information provided by product manufacturers/representatives on websites and e-mail consultations. The quality score was classified as very satisfactory, satisfactory, or not very satisfactory, represented in median and interquartile range. Between the N327 and N660 products, the quality scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. All tests considered two-tailed hypotheses and a significance level of 5%. After applying the inclusion criteria, from 148 products selected, 105 were evaluated. Most of the evaluated CBD products were classified as satisfactory (47), followed by not very satisfactory (39) and very satisfactory (19). The N327 products presented information that was more accessible than the N660 products. Similarly, there was a significant difference between the two groups concerning the domains of prescription and safety of use; products in the N327 showed better results than those in the N660. This study contributes to the urgent debate on the quality of labeling and the risks of CBD widely marketed in Brazil.
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.