ArticleNorth Carolina medical journal2025
Advertising Among Cannabidiol (CBD) Retailers in North Carolina: A Pilot Study.
Article in North Carolina medical journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCannabidiol (CBD) is widely available to consumers who report using it for health-related purposes. However, little is known about the marketing of CBD. This pilot study examined the content of CBD advertisements in brick-and-mortar retailers.
methodsIn November 2020, two trained data collectors conducted assessments in 13 brick-and-mortar CBD retailers in North Carolina. Advertisements were photographed, and the content was analyzed for product descriptors and health conditions for which CBD was promoted.
resultsAll retailers displayed advertisements that either contained misleading product descriptors or unapproved health claims. Almost all retailers (92.3%) displayed advertisements that contained unapproved health claims. While 84.6% displayed advertisements that contained product descriptors, approximately one-quarter of CBD advertisements used product descriptors that may convey CBD as a healthy or safe product to consumers, including "full-spectrum" (10.6%), "natural" (6.4%), and "pure" (4.3%). Over 40% of the advertisements promoted CBD for health conditions, including stress/anxiety (29.8%), arthritis/inflammation (28.7%), and pain (26.6%). LIMITATIONS: The pilot study was restricted to urban retailers in North Carolina, limiting its generalizability.
conclusionsThis study is among the first to document CBD advertising in brick-and-mortar CBD retailers. Findings show that most retailers displayed advertisements that promote CBD as a treatment for health conditions and/or include product descriptors that indicate CBD is healthy or safe for consumers. These advertisements may reduce harm perceptions of CBD and influence consumers to replace evidence-based practices with CBD. Our study indicates a need for further surveillance and FDA enforcement of marketing practices in the CBD retail environment.
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.