ReviewPCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2026
Psychiatric effects of cannabidiol, cannabinol, and tetrahydrocannabinol: A narrative review of clinical evidence and risk profiles.
Review in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychiatric effects of cannabidiol, cannabinol, and tetrahydrocannabinol: A narrative review of clinical evidence and risk profiles.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Review
- Regulation and Use of Cannabidiol in Croatia Compared with Selected European and International Models: From Consumer Products to Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cannabinoid products are increasingly used worldwide despite limited psychiatric evidence. This narrative review synthesizes preclinical and clinical evidence on cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to clarify their distinct psychiatric profiles and discuss how current evidence may inform ongoing clinical and regulatory discussions. A targeted search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through March 2026 was conducted, prioritizing randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. While preclinical studies consistently suggest anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects of CBD, clinical evidence remains inconsistent and fails to establish robust therapeutic efficacy. Recent meta-analyses indicate no consistent clinically meaningful benefit of cannabinoids across major psychiatric disorders, and evidence for CBN remains minimal and insufficient to support any clinical recommendation. In sharp contrast, a robust body of evidence indicates that THC is strongly and dose-dependently associated with adverse psychiatric outcomes-including psychosis, cognitive impairment, mood instability, and suicidality-particularly with early-onset or high-potency use. Overall, current evidence does not support the routine clinical use of cannabinoids for psychiatric indications. Although CBD is an investigational agent with a favorable safety profile, its clinical utility remains unproven, whereas THC exposure carries well-documented risks of psychiatric adverse effects. These findings underscore the importance of cautious, compound-specific, and evidence-based approaches to clinical practice and regulation, particularly within the precautionary frameworks observed in several Asian countries.
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.