ArticleCancers2025
Comment on Bar-Sela et al. Cannabis Consumption Used by Cancer Patients During Immunotherapy Correlates with Poor Clinical Outcome.
Article in Cancers, 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
Abstract
The small (N = 102) prospective study by Bar-Sela and colleagues at Emek Medical Center in Israel) regarding diminished efficacy of immunotherapy in the setting of cannabis use would be an important discovery which could theoretically benefit the outcomes of oncology patients if verified by independent research teams, including by basic scientists. However, if this finding was spurious, clinical practice guidelines could recommend that oncology patients receiving immunotherapies be erroneously denied an evidence-based treatment for pain and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Our full-length manuscript identified dozens of instances of unverifiable statistical information and even errors in arithmetic in this report. More briefly, our concerns regarding this well-cited (123 times) paper are as follows: (1) non-verifiable non-parametric statistics, including some that would change the statistical inferences; (2) difficulties with determining percentages; (3) switching from two-tailed tests in the Methods to one-tailed in the Results; (4) engaging in the unusual practice of floor rounding but not reporting this in the Methods; and (5) not reporting smoking, which could be a key confound. These concerns are serious errors that undermine the validity of the results and invalidate the conclusions that can be drawn from this prospective study about cannabis and immunotherapy.
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.