-
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Apr 2024The prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs) in people who use cannabis recreationally has been estimated at 22%, yet there is a dearth of literature exploring CUDs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of cannabis use disorders (CUDs) in people who use cannabis recreationally has been estimated at 22%, yet there is a dearth of literature exploring CUDs among people who use medicinal cannabis. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis.
METHODS
In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched three databases (PsychInfo, Embase and PubMed) to identify studies examining the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis. Meta-analyses were calculated on the prevalence of CUDs. Prevalence estimates were pooled across different prevalence periods using the DSM-IV and DSM-5.
RESULTS
We conducted a systematic review of 14 eligible publications, assessing the prevalence of CUDs, providing data for 3681 participants from five different countries. The systematic review demonstrated that demographic factors, mental health disorders and the management of chronic pain with medicinal cannabis were associated with an elevated risk of CUDs. Meta-analyses were conducted on the prevalence of CUDs. For individuals using medicinal cannabis in the past 6-12 months, the prevalence of CUDs was 29% (95% CI: 21-38%) as per DSM-5 criteria. Similar prevalence was observed using DSM-IV (24%, CI: 14-38%) for the same period. When including all prevalence periods and using the DSM-5, the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis was estimated at 25% (CI: 18-33%).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis is substantial and comparable to people who use cannabis for recreational reasons, emphasizing the need for ongoing research to monitor the prevalence of CUDs in people who use medicinal cannabis.
Topics: Humans; Cannabis; Marijuana Abuse; Medical Marijuana; Prevalence; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 38493566
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111263 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Sep 2022Cannabis use disorder (CUD) affects one-in-five cannabis users, presenting a major contributor to cannabis-associated disease burden. Epidemiological data identify the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis use disorder (CUD) affects one-in-five cannabis users, presenting a major contributor to cannabis-associated disease burden. Epidemiological data identify the frequency of cannabis use as a risk factor for CUD. This review aimed to determine quantifiable risk-thresholds of the frequency of cannabis use for developing CUD.
METHODS
Systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science for cohort/case-control studies that assessed the association between frequency of cannabis use and CUD from 2000 to 2022. Effect estimates were converted to risk ratios (RR). A random-effects multi-level multivariate meta-analytic approach was utilized, and sensitivity analyses conducted. Quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Six prospective cohort studies were included in this review, drawn from two main source studies. Random-effect modeling showed a significant log-linear dose-response association between the frequency of cannabis use and CUD risk (p < 0.0001). The risk of CUD increased from RR:2.03 (95% CI:1.85-2.22) for 'yearly' use, to RR:4.12 (95% CI:3.44-4.95) for 'monthly" use, RR:8.37 (95% CI:6.37-11.00) for 'weekly' use, and RR:16.99 (95% CI:11.80-24.46) for 'daily' use. Multi-level modeling showed an absolute risk increase (ARI) from 3.5% (95% CI:2.6-4.7) for 'yearly' use, to 8.0% (95% CI:5.3-12.1) for 'monthly' use, to 16.8% (95% CI:8.8-32.0) for 'weekly' use, and 36% (95% CI:27.047.9) for 'daily' use.
CONCLUSION
A limited risk of CUD as a potential outcome of cannabis use exists even at infrequent levels of use, but significantly increases as frequency of use increases. Corresponding information should be conveyed to cannabis users as part of targeted prevention messaging to promote safer cannabis use.
Topics: Cannabis; Cohort Studies; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35932748
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109582 -
Trauma, Violence & Abuse Jan 2017This review examines the association between alcohol and illicit drug use and the perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment (CM). In... (Review)
Review
This review examines the association between alcohol and illicit drug use and the perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment (CM). In clinical populations, alcohol use is related to IPV, although other variables are also known to influence this relationship. Studies in specialized social/health care and in the community have also demonstrated the association between alcohol use and IPV. Although data on the association between illicit drug use and IPV are less clear, in most studies perpetration seems related to the use of cannabis and cocaine. The occurrence of CM is related to alcohol use in specialized social/health care and community populations but has not been extensively investigated in clinical samples. These findings also apply to studies on the association between illicit drug use and CM. Moreover, many studies on CM fail to distinguish between the effects of alcohol and those of illicit drugs. This review concludes with recommendations for future research about substance use and family violence and discusses implications for prevention and treatment.
Topics: Alcohol Drinking; Child; Crime Victims; Developed Countries; Domestic Violence; Drug Users; Female; Humans; Intimate Partner Violence; Male; Marijuana Smoking; Risk Factors; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 26296740
DOI: 10.1177/1524838015589253 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Globally, cannabis use is prevalent and widespread. There are currently no pharmacotherapies approved for treatment of cannabis use disorders.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapies as compared with each other, placebo or no pharmacotherapy (supportive care) for reducing symptoms of cannabis withdrawal and promoting cessation or reduction of cannabis use.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to March 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving the use of medications to treat cannabis withdrawal or to promote cessation or reduction of cannabis use, or both, in comparison with other medications, placebo or no medication (supportive care) in people diagnosed as cannabis dependent or who were likely to be dependent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs involving 1755 participants: 18 studies recruited adults (mean age 22 to 41 years); three studies targeted young people (mean age 20 years). Most (75%) participants were male. The studies were at low risk of performance, detection and selective outcome reporting bias. One study was at risk of selection bias, and three studies were at risk of attrition bias.All studies involved comparison of active medication and placebo. The medications were diverse, as were the outcomes reported, which limited the extent of analysis.Abstinence at end of treatment was no more likely with Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) preparations than with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.52; 305 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence). For selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in the likelihood of abstinence at end of treatment compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was qualitative evidence of reduced intensity of withdrawal symptoms with THC preparations compared to placebo. For other pharmacotherapies, this outcome was either not examined, or no significant differences was reported.Adverse effects were no more likely with THC preparations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 318 participants; 3 studies) or N-acetylcysteine (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23; 418 participants; 2 studies) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence). For SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine, there was no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects with THC preparations, SSRIs antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the likelihood of treatment completion with THC preparations, SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants and buspirone compared to placebo (low- to very low-quality evidence) or with N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21; 418 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers appeared to reduce the likelihood of treatment completion (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92; 141 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).Available evidence on gabapentin (anticonvulsant), oxytocin (neuropeptide) and atomoxetine was insufficient for estimates of effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is incomplete evidence for all of the pharmacotherapies investigated, and for many outcomes the quality of the evidence was low or very low. Findings indicate that SSRI antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, bupropion, buspirone and atomoxetine are probably of little value in the treatment of cannabis dependence. Given the limited evidence of efficacy, THC preparations should be considered still experimental, with some positive effects on withdrawal symptoms and craving. The evidence base for the anticonvulsant gabapentin, oxytocin, and N-acetylcysteine is weak, but these medications are also worth further investigation.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Buspirone; Dronabinol; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Young Adult
PubMed: 30687936
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008940.pub3 -
Psychological Medicine Apr 2015Cannabis use and misuse have become a public health problem. There is a need for reliable screening and assessment tools to identify harmful cannabis use at an early... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis use and misuse have become a public health problem. There is a need for reliable screening and assessment tools to identify harmful cannabis use at an early stage. We conducted a systematic review of published instruments used to screen and assess cannabis use disorders.
METHOD
We included papers published until January 2013 from seven different databases, following the PRISMA guidelines and a predetermined set of criteria for article selection. Only tools including a quantification of cannabis use and/or a measurement of the severity of dependence were considered.
RESULTS
We identified 34 studies, of which 25 included instruments that met our inclusion criteria: 10 scales to assess cannabis use disorders, seven structured interviews, and eight tools to quantify cannabis use. Both cannabis and substance use scales showed good reliability and were validated in specific populations. Structured interviews were also reliable and showed good validity parameters. Common limitations were inadequate time-frames for screening, lack of brevity, undemonstrated validity for some populations (e.g., psychiatric patients, female gender, adolescents), and lack of relevant information that would enable routine use (e.g., risky use, regular users). Instruments to quantify consumption did not measure grams of the psychoactive compounds, which hampered comparability among different countries or regions where tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations may differ.
CONCLUSIONS
Current instruments available for assessing cannabis use disorders need to be further improved. A standard cannabis unit should be studied and existing instruments should be adapted to this standard unit in order to improve cannabis use assessment.
Topics: Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 25366671
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291714002463 -
American Journal of Men's Health 2019Globally, there is increasing usage and legalization of cannabis. In addition to its reported therapeutic effects, cannabis has several health risks which are not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Globally, there is increasing usage and legalization of cannabis. In addition to its reported therapeutic effects, cannabis has several health risks which are not clearly defined. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most common male sexual disorder and there are plausible mechanisms linking cannabis use to ED. No attempt has been made to collate the literature on this topic. The aim of this review was to summarize the prevalence and risk of ED in cannabis users compared to controls. A systematic review of major databases from inception to January 1, 2019, without language restriction, was undertaken to identify studies investigating cannabis use and presence of ED. The analysis compared the prevalence of ED in cannabis users versus controls. Consequently, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated, applying a random-effect model. Five case-control studies were included with data from 3,395 healthy men, 1,035 using cannabis (smoking) and 2,360 nonusers. The overall prevalence of ED in cannabis users was 69.1% (95% CI: 38.0-89.1), whilst the correspondent figure in controls was 34.7% (95% CI: 20.3-52.7). The OR of ED in cannabis users was almost four times that of controls (OR = 3.83; 95% CI: 1.30-11.28; = .02), even if characterized by high heterogeneity ( = 90%) and the prediction intervals overlapped 1.00 (95% CI: 0.35-7.26). Data suggest that ED is twice as high in cannabis users compared to controls. Future longitudinal research is needed to confirm/refute this and explore if a dose-response relationship between cannabis and ED may be evident.
Topics: Adult; Cannabis; Case-Control Studies; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Reference Values; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31795801
DOI: 10.1177/1557988319892464 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine Mar 2018The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine conducted a rapid turn-around comprehensive review of recent medical literature on The Health Effects of... (Review)
Review
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine conducted a rapid turn-around comprehensive review of recent medical literature on The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids. The 16-member committee adopted the key features of a systematic review process, conducting an extensive search of relevant databases and considered 10,000 recent abstracts to determine their relevance. Primacy was given to recently published systematic reviews and primary research that studied one of the committee's 11 prioritized health endpoints- therapeutic effects; cancer incidence; cardiometabolic risk; respiratory disease; immune function; injury and death; prenatal, perinatal and postnatal outcomes; psychosocial outcomes; mental health; problem Cannabis use; and Cannabis use and abuse of other substances. The committee developed standard language to categorize the weight of evidence regarding whether Cannabis or cannabinoids use for therapeutic purposes are an effective or ineffective treatment for the prioritized health endpoints of interest. In the Therapeutics chapter reviewed here, the report concluded that there was conclusive or substantial evidence that Cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for the treatment of pain in adults; chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis. Moderate evidence was found for secondary sleep disturbances. The evidence supporting improvement in appetite, Tourette syndrome, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy and a variety of neurodegenerative disorders was described as limited, insufficient or absent. A chapter of the NASEM report enumerated multiple barriers to conducting research on Cannabis in the US that may explain the paucity of positive therapeutic benefits in the published literature to date.
Topics: Cannabinoids; Chronic Pain; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Medical Marijuana; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29325791
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.01.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2006Cannabis use disorder is the most common illicit substance use disorder in general population. Despite that, only a minority seek assistance from a health professional,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis use disorder is the most common illicit substance use disorder in general population. Despite that, only a minority seek assistance from a health professional, but the demand for treatment is now increasing internationally. Trials of treatment have been published but to our knowledge, there is no published systematic review .
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis abuse or dependence.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2004), PsycInfo (1985 to October 2004), CINAHL (1982 to October 2004), Toxibase (until September 2004) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized controlled studies examining a psychotherapeutic intervention for cannabis dependence or abuse in comparison with a delayed-treatment control group or combinations of psychotherapeutic interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials involving 1297 people were included. Five studies took place in the United States, one in Australia. Studies were not pooled in meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. The six included studies suggested that counseling approaches might have beneficial effects for the treatment of cannabis dependence. Group and individual sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had both efficacy for the treatment of cannabis dependence and associated problems, CBT produced better outcomes than a brief intervention when CBT was delivered in individual sessions. Two studies suggested that adding voucher-based incentives may enhance treatment when used in combination with other effective psychotherapeutic interventions. Abstinence rates were relatively small overall but favored the individual CBT 9-session (or more) condition. All included trials reported a statistically significant reductions in frequency of cannabis use and dependence symptoms. But other measures of problems related to cannabis use were not consistently different.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included studies were too heterogenous and could not allow to draw up a clear conclusion. The studies comparing different therapeutic modalities raise important questions about the duration, intensity and type of treatment. The generalizability of findings is also unknown because the studies have been conducted in a limited number of localities with fairly homogenous samples of treatment seekers. However, the low abstinence rate indicated that cannabis dependence is not easily treated by psychotherapies in outpatient settings.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16856093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005336.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder in the general population; although demand for assistance from health services is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis use disorder is the most commonly reported illegal substance use disorder in the general population; although demand for assistance from health services is increasing internationally, only a minority of those with the disorder seek professional assistance. Treatment studies have been published, but pressure to establish public policy requires an updated systematic review of cannabis-specific treatments for adults.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder (compared with inactive control and/or alternative treatment) delivered to adults in an out-patient or community setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulaive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and reference lists of articles. Searched literature included all articles published before July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies examining a psychosocial intervention for cannabis use disorder (without pharmacological intervention) in comparison with a minimal or inactive treatment control or alternative combinations of psychosocial interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 randomised controlled trials involving 4045 participants. A total of 15 studies took place in the United States, two in Australia, two in Germany and one each in Switzerland, Canada, Brazil and Ireland. Investigators delivered treatments over approximately seven sessions (range, one to 14) for approximately 12 weeks (range, one to 56).Overall, risk of bias across studies was moderate, that is, no trial was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias or reporting bias. Further, trials included a large total number of participants, and each trial ensured the fidelity of treatments provided. In contrast, because of the nature of the interventions provided, participant blinding was not possible, and reports of researcher blinding often were unclear or were not provided. Half of the reviewed studies included collateral verification or urinalysis to confirm self report data, leading to concern about performance and detection bias. Finally, concerns of other bias were based on relatively consistent lack of assessment of non-cannabis substance use or use of additional treatments before or during the trial period.A subset of studies provided sufficient detail for comparison of effects of any intervention versus inactive control on primary outcomes of interest at early follow-up (median, four months). Results showed moderate-quality evidence that approximately seven out of 10 intervention participants completed treatment as intended (effect size (ES) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.78, 11 studies, 1424 participants), and that those receiving psychosocial intervention used cannabis on fewer days compared with those given inactive control (mean difference (MD) 5.67, 95% CI 3.08 to 8.26, six studies, 1144 participants). In addition, low-quality evidence revealed that those receiving intervention were more likely to report point-prevalence abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.83, six studies, 1166 participants) and reported fewer symptoms of dependence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 4.15, 95% CI 1.67 to 6.63, four studies, 889 participants) and cannabis-related problems compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.34, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.42, six studies, 2202 participants). Finally, very low-quality evidence indicated that those receiving intervention reported using fewer joints per day compared with those given inactive control (SMD 3.55, 95% CI 2.51 to 4.59, eight studies, 1600 participants). Notably, subgroup analyses found that interventions of more than four sessions delivered over longer than one month (high intensity) produced consistently improved outcomes (particularly in terms of cannabis use frequency and severity of dependence) in the short term as compared with low-intensity interventions.The most consistent evidence supports the use of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and particularly their combination for assisting with reduction of cannabis use frequency at early follow-up (MET: MD 4.45, 95% CI 1.90 to 7.00, four studies, 612 participants; CBT: MD 10.94, 95% CI 7.44 to 14.44, one study, 134 participants; MET + CBT: MD 7.38, 95% CI 3.18 to 11.57, three studies, 398 participants) and severity of dependence (MET: SMD 4.07, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.17, two studies, 316 participants; MET + CBT: SMD 7.89, 95% CI 0.93 to 14.85, three studies, 573 participants), although no particular intervention was consistently effective at nine-month follow-up or later. In addition, data from five out of six studies supported the utility of adding voucher-based incentives for cannabis-negative urines to enhance treatment effect on cannabis use frequency. A single study found contrasting results throughout a 12-month follow-up period, as post-treatment outcomes related to overall reduction in cannabis use frequency favoured CBT alone without the addition of abstinence-based or treatment adherence-based contingency management. In contrast, evidence of drug counselling, social support, relapse prevention and mindfulness meditation was weak because identified studies were few, information on treatment outcomes insufficient and rates of treatment adherence low. In line with treatments for other substance use, abstinence rates were relatively low overall, with approximately one-quarter of participants abstinent at final follow-up. Finally, three studies found that intervention was comparable with treatment as usual among participants in psychiatric clinics and reported no between-group differences in any of the included outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Included studies were heterogeneous in many aspects, and important questions regarding the most effective duration, intensity and type of intervention were raised and partially resolved. Generalisability of findings was unclear, most notably because of the limited number of localities and homogeneous samples of treatment seekers. The rate of abstinence was low and unstable although comparable with treatments for other substance use. Psychosocial intervention was shown, in comparison with minimal treatment controls, to reduce frequency of use and severity of dependence in a fairly durable manner, at least in the short term. Among the included intervention types, an intensive intervention provided over more than four sessions based on the combination of MET and CBT with abstinence-based incentives was most consistently supported for treatment of cannabis use disorder.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Motivational Interviewing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27149547
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005336.pub4 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2020There is evidence that sex- and gender-related factors are involved in cannabis patterns of use, health effects and biological mechanisms. Women and men report different...
There is evidence that sex- and gender-related factors are involved in cannabis patterns of use, health effects and biological mechanisms. Women and men report different cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptoms, with women reporting worse withdrawal symptoms than men. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of cannabis pharmacological interventions for women and men and the uptake of sex- and gender-based analysis in the included studies. Two reviewers performed the full-paper screening, and data was extracted by one researcher. The search yielded 6098 unique records-of which, 68 were full-paper screened. Four articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. From the randomized clinical studies of pharmacological interventions, few studies report sex-disaggregated outcomes for women and men. Despite emergent evidence showing the influence of sex and gender factors in cannabis research, sex-disaggregated outcomes in pharmacological interventions is lacking. Sex- and gender-based analysis is incipient in the included articles. Future research should explore more comprehensive inclusion of sex- and gender-related aspects in pharmacological treatments for CUD.
Topics: Cannabis; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Abuse; Sex Factors; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 32019247
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030872