MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224326475 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1957

Long‐term observational studies with cannabis‐based medicines for chronic non‐cancer pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of effectiveness and safety

2022· review· en· W4224326475 on OpenAlexaff
Patric Bialas, Mary‐Ann Fitzcharles, Petra Klose, Winfried Häuser

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineTolerabilityContext (archaeology)Confidence intervalAdverse effectMeta-analysisChronic painInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in long-term observational studies. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched until December 2021. We included prospective observational studies with a study duration ≥26 weeks. Pooled estimates of event rates of categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) of continuous variables were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Six studies were included with 2686 participants, with study duration ranging between 26 and 52 weeks. Pain conditions included nociceptive, nociplastic, neuropathic and mixed pain mechanisms. The certainty of evidence for every outcome was very low. The weighted mean difference of mean pain reduction was 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 2.78) on a 0-10 scale. 20.8% (95% CI 10.2% to 34.0%) of patients reported pain relief of 50% or greater. The effect size for sleep problems was moderate and for depression and anxiety was low. Study completions was reported for 53.3% (95% CI 26.8% to 79.9%) of patients, with dropouts of 6.8% (95% CI 4.3% to 9.7%) due to adverse events. Serious adverse events occurred in 3.0% (95 CI 0.02% to 12.8%) and 0.3% (95% CI 0.1% to 0.6%) of patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Information included in observational studies should be regarded with caution. Within the context of observational studies. CbMs had positive effects on multiple symptoms for some CNCP patients and were generally well tolerated and safe. SIGNIFICANCE: There is very low quality evidence for the long-term effectiveness (pain, sleep, mood, health-related quality of life), tolerability and safety of medical cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) according to reports of prospective observational studies. Predefined criteria of a large magnitude of effect size in these types of studies were not met. Nevertheless, long-term medical cannabis therapy can be considered in some carefully selected and monitored patients with CNCP.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207