ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2025
Development and evaluation of a method to compile a national list of cannabis dispensaries.
Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 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.
- Patterns of specialty tobacco retail locations and visitor counts in the USA.Tobacco control · 2026Article
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
introductionUnderstanding how retail availability impacts cannabis attitudes and use requires data on the geographic distribution of cannabis dispensaries. However, with no single comprehensive source for dispensary locations, accurately mapping dispensaries presents unique challenges. This study's purpose was to: 1) describe a systematic process for identifying dispensaries that can be applied nationwide using two unexplored resources-RefUSA and Google Maps; 2) compare the accuracy of these resources with three commonly used sources of location data - state regulatory lists, Weedmaps, and Potguide; and 3) examine whether accuracy varies by urbanicity.
methodsWe obtained dispensary lists from Google Maps, Weedmaps, Potguide, RefUSA, and state regulatory data in three zip codes in every state that had legal recreational cannabis marketplaces, calling the dispensaries to confirm that they were operational. We present sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) by list and by Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs), using the call-verified dispensary list as the gold standard.
resultsGoogle Maps identified the greatest number of dispensaries (n = 264), had the best sensitivity of all lists (96.0 %; 95 % CI: 92.6, 99.2), and yielded the highest proportion of potentially unlicensed dispensaries (29 %). There were no clear trends in sensitivity or PPV by RUCA. Removing listings that Google Maps marked as closed or that lacked phone numbers increased PPV from 82.2 % (95 % CI: 77.0, 86.6) to 96.4 % (95 % CI: 93.1, 98.5) without decreasing sensitivity.
conclusionsGoogle Maps currently offers the most accurate source of dispensary data for cross sectional analyses and performs equally well in urban and rural areas.
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.