ReviewJournal of cannabis research2025
Enhancing Methods for Research on Cannabis: A Workshop Report.
Review 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsProgressive legalization of medical and recreational cannabis markets at the state-level has led to rapid growth of medical and recreational cannabis markets and to product diversification with emerging products having high concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Research on these products is still limited and the evidence available for policy formulation is diminished by methodological limitations.
methodsAs a step towards addressing these limitations, the Colorado School of Public Health convened a multidisciplinary workshop that addressed four areas of cannabis research: epidemiological, clinical, surveillance, and policy. Workshop participants provided recommendations in each area to advance research on cannabis to make it more informative for decision-making on key policy topics. Emphasis was placed on assessment of use of cannabis products by study participants.
resultsRecommendations for research methods and their implementation were made in the four areas. Those for epidemiology include using a core set of exposure assessment measures across three domains; developing this core set through a national and/or international scientific consensus process; ensuring the core set of measures are validated and readily available; and updating the core set periodically to account for ongoing changes in the cannabis landscape. Recommendations in the clinical research area include standard dosing and dosing terminology; standardized data collection instruments; identifying biomarkers for detecting cannabis exposure; and biological matrices. Policy research recommendations were offered for state regulators, evaluators/researchers, and policy makers. Surveillance recommendations include developing and implementing a novel and nimble surveillance system to monitor use of high-concentration forms of cannabis; adding questions to existing surveillance systems with the objective of monitoring high-concentration cannabis and adverse outcomes; and elevating the coordination, synthesis, and dissemination of findings in existing data sources that could signal adverse outcomes from high-concentration cannabis.
conclusionsGiven the changing marketplace, it is urgent to improve the informativeness of cannabis research through enhanced research methods.
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.