Meta-analysis of cannabis based treatments for neuropathic and multiple sclerosis-related pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Debilitating pain, occurring in 50-70% of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, is poorly understood and infrequently studied. We summarized efficacy and safety data of cannabinoid-based drugs for neuropathic pain. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases; Bayer Healthcare provided additional trials. STUDY SELECTION: Accepted were randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trials of cannabinoid-based treatments for MS-related/neuropathic pain in adults > or = 18 years of age. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data; a third adjudicated disagreements. Data included baseline and endpoint pain scores on visual analog or 11-point ordinal scales. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 18 articles and three randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports identified, 12 articles and two reports were rejected (9 = inappropriate disease or outcome, 1 = duplicate, 1 = review, and 1 = abstract); six accepted articles and one RCT-report involved 298 patients (222 treated, 76 placebo); four examined Sativex (a cannabidiol/delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) buccal spray) (observations = 196), five cannabidiol (n = 41), and three dronabinol (n = 91). Homogeneity chi(2) values were non-significant, allowing data combination. Analyses focused on baseline-endpoint score differences. The cannabidiol/THC buccal spray decreased pain 1.7 +/- 0.7 points (p = 0.018), cannabidiol 1.5 +/- 0.7 (p = 0.044), dronabinol 1.5 +/- 0.6 (p = 0.013), and all cannabinoids pooled together 1.6 +/- 0.4 (p < 0.001). Placebo baseline-endpoint scores did not differ (0.8 +/- 0.4 points, p = 0.023). At endpoint, cannabinoids were superior to placebo by 0.8 +/- 0.3 points (p = 0.029). Dizziness was the most commonly observed adverse event in the cannabidiol/THC buccal spray arms (39 +/- 16%), across all cannabinoid treatments (32.5 +/- 16%) as well as in the placebo arms (10 +/- 4%). CONCLUSION: Cannabinoids including the cannabidiol/THC buccal spray are effective in treating neuropathic pain in MS. LIMITATIONS: This review was based on a small number of trials and patients. Pain related to MS was assumed to be similar to neuropathic pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".