医用大麻研究证据综述:当前的挑战与机遇。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Ben Senator, Mafalda Pardal, Liesbeth Vandam
{"title":"医用大麻研究证据综述:当前的挑战与机遇。","authors":"Ben Senator, Mafalda Pardal, Liesbeth Vandam","doi":"10.1007/s00406-024-01893-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As a wide group of medicines, the effectiveness and safety of 'medical cannabis' products is likely to vary in relation to product-specific dimensions such as potency, dosage, route of administration, and cannabinoid composition. Systematic reviews can perform a crucial role in analysing and synthesising the outcomes of medical cannabis interventions found in empirical research. We analysed 23 contemporary systematic reviews on the effectiveness and safety of medical cannabis to discern the extent to which this body of work aimed to capture, and ultimately captured, the differing outcomes of medical cannabis products by product-specific dimensions of treatment. We further highlighted the methodological reasons given by authors for an inability to describe this granular level of information. We found that a minority of systematic reviews explicitly aimed to perform a subgroup analysis to determine differences in treatment outcomes by product-specific dimensions of medical cannabis, with even fewer subsequently doing so. Authors' stated reasons for this concerned either overly large or overly small levels of variation in the characteristics, compositions, and administrations of medical cannabis products used, rendering subgroup analyses methodologically inappropriate or inapplicable. Furthering systematic reviews' abilities to capture granular information on medical cannabis treatment outcomes in relation to product-specific dimensions of treatments will require further standardisation of treatments in empirical studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11822,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence synthesis of medical cannabis research: current challenges and opportunities.\",\"authors\":\"Ben Senator, Mafalda Pardal, Liesbeth Vandam\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00406-024-01893-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As a wide group of medicines, the effectiveness and safety of 'medical cannabis' products is likely to vary in relation to product-specific dimensions such as potency, dosage, route of administration, and cannabinoid composition. Systematic reviews can perform a crucial role in analysing and synthesising the outcomes of medical cannabis interventions found in empirical research. We analysed 23 contemporary systematic reviews on the effectiveness and safety of medical cannabis to discern the extent to which this body of work aimed to capture, and ultimately captured, the differing outcomes of medical cannabis products by product-specific dimensions of treatment. We further highlighted the methodological reasons given by authors for an inability to describe this granular level of information. We found that a minority of systematic reviews explicitly aimed to perform a subgroup analysis to determine differences in treatment outcomes by product-specific dimensions of medical cannabis, with even fewer subsequently doing so. Authors' stated reasons for this concerned either overly large or overly small levels of variation in the characteristics, compositions, and administrations of medical cannabis products used, rendering subgroup analyses methodologically inappropriate or inapplicable. Furthering systematic reviews' abilities to capture granular information on medical cannabis treatment outcomes in relation to product-specific dimensions of treatments will require further standardisation of treatments in empirical studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-024-01893-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-024-01893-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为一类广泛的药物,"医用大麻 "产品的有效性和安全性很可能因产品的特定方面(如药效、剂量、给药途径和大麻素成分)而有所不同。系统性综述可在分析和综合实证研究中发现的医用大麻干预结果方面发挥重要作用。我们分析了 23 篇有关医用大麻有效性和安全性的当代系统性综述,以了解这部分研究在多大程度上旨在按产品的特定治疗维度捕捉并最终捕捉到医用大麻产品的不同结果。我们进一步强调了作者给出的无法描述这种细粒度信息的方法论原因。我们发现,只有少数系统性综述明确表示要进行亚组分析,以确定医用大麻产品特定方面的治疗效果差异,而随后这样做的作者则更少。作者陈述的原因是所使用的医用大麻产品在特征、成分和给药方式上的差异过大或过小,导致亚组分析在方法上不合适或不适用。要进一步提高系统性综述捕捉医用大麻治疗结果与特定产品治疗方法相关的细粒度信息的能力,就需要在实证研究中进一步规范治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence synthesis of medical cannabis research: current challenges and opportunities.

As a wide group of medicines, the effectiveness and safety of 'medical cannabis' products is likely to vary in relation to product-specific dimensions such as potency, dosage, route of administration, and cannabinoid composition. Systematic reviews can perform a crucial role in analysing and synthesising the outcomes of medical cannabis interventions found in empirical research. We analysed 23 contemporary systematic reviews on the effectiveness and safety of medical cannabis to discern the extent to which this body of work aimed to capture, and ultimately captured, the differing outcomes of medical cannabis products by product-specific dimensions of treatment. We further highlighted the methodological reasons given by authors for an inability to describe this granular level of information. We found that a minority of systematic reviews explicitly aimed to perform a subgroup analysis to determine differences in treatment outcomes by product-specific dimensions of medical cannabis, with even fewer subsequently doing so. Authors' stated reasons for this concerned either overly large or overly small levels of variation in the characteristics, compositions, and administrations of medical cannabis products used, rendering subgroup analyses methodologically inappropriate or inapplicable. Furthering systematic reviews' abilities to capture granular information on medical cannabis treatment outcomes in relation to product-specific dimensions of treatments will require further standardisation of treatments in empirical studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The original papers published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience deal with all aspects of psychiatry and related clinical neuroscience. Clinical psychiatry, psychopathology, epidemiology as well as brain imaging, neuropathological, neurophysiological, neurochemical and moleculargenetic studies of psychiatric disorders are among the topics covered. Thus both the clinician and the neuroscientist are provided with a handy source of information on important scientific developments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信