ReviewBJPsych bulletin2026
Questioning assumptions about the abuse potential of medical cannabis and cannabinoids: narrative review and commentary.
Review in BJPsych bulletin, 2026. 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.
- Cannabinoids in hematologic malignancies: mechanisms and therapeutic potential for overcoming drug resistance.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
methodThere is a pressing need for standardised and comprehensive research frameworks to evaluate both the therapeutic benefits and risks of dependency and misuse associated with medical cannabis. We address the issue of abuse potential or misuse liability by examining research data and what amounts to existing clinical dogma for validity and generalisability. We undertook a broad scoping approach to exploring recent literature, focusing on clinical studies that investigated abuse/misuse and dependence among users of medical and/or recreational cannabis and cannabinoids. The search provided over 350 articles, mostly (∼90%) dated post 2002. Abstract analysis narrowed the selection to under 50 papers, according to their relevance as judged by the authors, an experienced clinician and a public health toxicologist.
resultsWe identified and commented upon some broad assumptions within the abuse liability literature that included (a) a standard cannabis formulation; (b) standard routes of administration and standard potency dosing; (c) a standard pattern of use; (d) a standard user or patient; and (e) a standard vulnerability to misuse or dependence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Unpacking and questioning these assumptions leads to the conclusion that far more rigorous language and research design are needed to address the question of cannabis abuse definitively but, based on the best available evidence, it appears that the abuse liability of medically supervised cannabis is comparable to any other class of widely used and well-regulated pharmaceutical agents.
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.