Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41343139›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2026

Randomised Controlled Trial Evidence on Medicinal Cannabis for Treatment of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: A Scoping Review.

Sophie Cooling, Yvonne Ann Bonomo, David Castle, Christine Mary Hallinan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sophie CoolingDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Medical Building, The University of Melbourne, 181 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Yvonne Ann BonomoDepartment of Addiction Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, Australia, 3065, VIC.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2583-0687
David CastleCentre for Mental Health Service Innovation and University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia, 7005.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3075-1580
Christine Mary HallinanDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Medical Building, The University of Melbourne, 181 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia. hallinan@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0471-4444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith shifting perceptions about the therapeutic potential of cannabis and evolving regulatory frameworks, global prescribing of medicinal cannabis is increasing. While some emerging evidence supports its use for conditions like multiple sclerosis and epilepsy, its efficacy and safety profile for the treatment of mental health conditions remains controversial and under-explored. Previous reviews found inconclusive evidence due to heterogeneity in study design and quality. Accordingly, this review was designed as a scoping review, consistent with established methodological frameworks to map and characterise all available randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence in this emerging and heterogeneous field. It specifically sought to synthesise the highest-quality trial evidence to date, addressing the question: How effective is medicinal cannabis in treating mental health conditions, as classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and how safe and tolerable is it, as assessed through adverse events and treatment withdrawals?

methodsA scoping review was conducted comprising RCTs investigating medicinal cannabis for mental health conditions. Eligible studies were required to meet predefined inclusion criteria based on population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design (PICOS framework). PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases were searched, supplemented by citation tracking and Google Scholar, for studies published between 1980 and 2024.

resultsThe search identified 8061 studies, with 28 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria across 12 DSM-5 mental health conditions. Indications most frequently studied were schizophrenia (n = 5), cannabis use disorder (n = 4), cocaine use disorder (n = 4), post-traumatic stress disorder (n = 3), anxiety disorders (n = 3), and opioid use disorder (n = 2); there were two trials in autism spectrum disorder and single trials in depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, tobacco use disorder, and Tourette syndrome. Sample sizes ranged from 6 to 150 participants (median = 42), and follow-up durations from 1 day to 13 weeks (median = 6 weeks). Interventions included purified cannabidiol (CBD; single doses of 300-800 mg and daily regimens up to 1000 mg/day), nabiximols or other tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/CBD oromucosal sprays (up to 113 mg THC/105 mg CBD per day), and smoked or vaporised cannabis flower of varying THC/CBD content. Findings showed substantial heterogeneity and variable quality, with some short-term benefits reported (notably in cannabis use disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and schizophrenia), but no trial demonstrated long-term efficacy.

conclusionDespite growing interest, substantial heterogeneity limits current evidence for medicinal cannabis in mental health. This review highlights key gaps, underscoring the need for robust, well-powered RCTs with extended follow-up to clarify its role in the management of mental ill health.

Indexed as

Medical MarijuanaMental DisordersSubstance-Related DisordersHumansMental HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMedical Marijuana

Identifiers

PMID41343139
PMCPMC12815972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.