Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
39 References (39 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

The blind men and the elephant: Systematic review of systematic reviews of cannabis use related health harms.

blocked
Journal European Neuropsychopharmacology
Year 2020
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 43 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (43 references)

Loading references information
ABSTRACT: Cannabis is the third most used psychoactive substance worldwide. The legal status of cannabis is changing in many Western countries, while we have very limited knowledge of the public health impact of cannabis-related harms. There is a need for a summary of the evidence of harms and risks attributed to cannabis use, in order to inform the definition of cannabis risky use. We have conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews, aiming to define cannabis-related harms. We included systematic reviews published until July 2018 from six different databases and following the PRISMA guidelines. To assess study quality we applied the AMSTAR 2 tool. A total of 44 systematic reviews, including 1,053 different studies, were eligible for inclusion. Harm was categorized in three dimensions: mental health, somatic harm and physical injury (including mortality). Evidence shows a clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, affective disorders, anxiety, sleep disorders, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, cancer, cardiovascular outcomes, and gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, cannabis use is a risk factor for motor vehicle collision, suicidal behavior and partner and child violence. Cannabis use is a risk factor for several medical conditions and negative social consequences. There is still little data on the dose-dependency of these effects; evidence that is essential in order to define, from a public health perspective, what can be considered risky use of cannabis. This definition should be based on quantitative and qualitative criteria that informs and permits the evaluation of current approaches to a regulated cannabis market. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Medication in AN: A multidisciplinary overview of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

blocked
Journal Journal of clinical medicine
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 19 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (19 references)

Loading references information
Drugs are widely prescribed for anorexia nervosa in the nutritional, somatic, and psychiatric fields. There is no systematic overview in the literature, which simultaneously covers all these types of medication. The main aims of this paper are (1) to offer clinicians an overview of the evidence-based data in the literature concerning the medication (psychotropic drugs and medication for somatic and nutritional complications) in the field of anorexia nervosa since the 1960s, (2) to draw practical conclusions for everyday practise and future research. Searches were performed on three online databases, namely MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Web of Science. Papers published between September 2011 and January 2019 were considered. Evidence-based data were identified from meta-analyses, if there were none, from systematic reviews, and otherwise from trials (randomized or if not open-label studies). Evidence-based results are scarce. No psychotropic medication has proved efficacious in terms of weight gain, and there is only weak data suggesting it can alleviate certain psychiatric symptoms. Concerning nutritional and somatic conditions, while there is no specific, approved medication, it seems essential not to neglect the interest of innovative therapeutic strategies to treat multi-organic comorbidities. In the final section we discuss how to use these medications in the overall approach to the treatment of anorexia nervosa.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Do cannabinoids play a role in the control of glaucoma?

blocked
Authors Peña J , Jiménez C , Schmidt J
Journal Medwave
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI LILACS

This article includes 5 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (5 references) 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references)

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: The use of cannabinoids in diverse clinical conditions is today a subject of debate. Its use has been proposed for the control of glaucoma. However, there is controversy about its real effectiveness and safety. METHODS: To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified five systematic reviews including three studies overall, all of them randomized controlled trials. We concluded that although cannabinoids could decrease intraocular pressure, the effect would be transient and associated with frequent adverse effects.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management - An overview of systematic reviews.

blocked
Journal European journal of pain (London, England)
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 10 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (10 references)

Loading references information
Medicinal cannabis has already entered mainstream medicine in some countries. This systematic review (SR) aimed at evaluating the efficacy, acceptability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. Qualitative systematic review of SRs of randomized controlled trials with cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. The Cochrane databases of SRs, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and PubMed were searched for SR published in the period January 2009 to January 2017. Assessment of the methodological quality of SR was performed by the AMSTAR checklist. Out of 748 papers identified, 10 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was high in four and moderate in six SRs. There were inconsistent findings of four SRs on the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines in neuropathic pain and of one SR for painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There were consistent results that there was insufficient evidence of any cannabis-based medicine for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases (three SRs) and in cancer pain (two SRs). Cannabis-based medicines undoubtedly enrich the possibilities of drug treatment of chronic pain conditions. It remains the responsibility of the health care community to continue to pursue rigorous study of cannabis-based medicines to provide evidence that meets the standard of 21st century clinical care. SIGNIFICANCE: We provide an overview of systematic reviews on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. There are inconsistent findings of the efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There are inconsistent results on tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for any chronic pain.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

The therapeutic effects of Cannabis and cannabinoids: An update from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report.

blocked
Authors Abrams DI
Journal European journal of internal medicine
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 15 Primary studies Primary studies (15 references) 7 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (7 references)

Loading references information
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.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Systematic review of systematic reviews for medical cannabinoids: Pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and harms.

blocked
Journal Canadian Family Physician
Year 2018
Links Pubmed PubMed Central

This article includes 26 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (26 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of medical cannabinoids on pain, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting, and to identify adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and the references of included studies were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews with 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on medical cannabinoids for pain, spasticity, or nausea and vomiting were included. For adverse events, any meta-analysis for the conditions listed or of adverse events of cannabinoids was included. SYNTHESIS: From 1085 articles, 31 relevant systematic reviews were identified including 23 for pain, 5 for spasticity, 6 for nausea and vomiting, and 12 for adverse events. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs found more patients taking cannabinoids attained at least a 30% pain reduction: risk ratio (RR) of 1.37 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.64), number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Sensitivity analysis found study size and duration affected findings (subgroup differences, CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that cannabinoids improve nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. They might improve spasticity (primarily in multiple sclerosis). There is some uncertainty about whether cannabinoids improve pain, but if they do, it is neuropathic pain and the benefit is likely small. Adverse effects are very common, meaning benefits would need to be considerable to warrant trials of therapy.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Are cannabinoids effective for fibromyalgia?

blocked
Authors Rocco M , Rada G
Journal Medwave
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI LILACS

This article includes 15 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (15 references) 2 Primary studies Primary studies (2 references)

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Cannabinoids have been proposed as a therapeutic alternative for fibromyalgia. However, their clinical effectiveness is a matter of debate. METHODS: To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified fifteen systematic reviews including two randomized trials overall. We concluded it is not clear whether cannabinoids have any benefit in fibromyalgia because the certainty of the evidence is very low. On the other hand, they are associated to frequent adverse effects.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about the use of cannabinoids in clinical practice?

blocked
Journal Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central LILACS

This article includes 8 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (8 references)

Loading references information
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The therapeutic effects of cannabinoid compounds have been the center of many investigations. This study provides a synthesis on all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) that assessed the use of cannabinoids as a therapeutic approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of SRs, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP). METHODS: A broad search was conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to retrieve any Cochrane SRs that assessed the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids as a therapeutic approach. The results and key characteristics of all reviews included were summarized and discussed. RESULTS: Eight SRs were included. They assessed the use of cannabinoids for the following types of conditions: neurological (two SRs), psychiatric (two SRs), rheumatological (one SR), infectious (one SR) and oncological (two SRs). There was moderate-quality evidence showing that the use of cannabinoids reduced nausea and vomiting among adults, compared with placebo. Additionally, there was moderate-quality evidence showing that there was no difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine regarding the number of participants who reported vomiting, in this same population. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified eight Cochrane systematic reviews that provided evidence of unknown to moderate quality regarding the use of cannabinoids as a therapeutic intervention. Further studies are still imperative for solid conclusions to be reached regarding practical recommendations.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

The Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Treating Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis: a Systematic Review of Reviews.

blocked
Journal Current neurology and neuroscience reports
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 11 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (11 references)

Loading references information
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pharmaceutical cannabinoids such as nabiximols, nabilone and dronabinol, and plant-based cannabinoids have been investigated for their therapeutic potential in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms. This review of reviews aimed to synthesise findings from high quality systematic reviews that examined the safety and effectiveness of cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis. We examined the outcomes of disability and disability progression, pain, spasticity, bladder function, tremor/ataxia, quality of life and adverse effects. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 11 eligible systematic reviews providing data from 32 studies, including 10 moderate to high quality RCTs. Five reviews concluded that there was sufficient evidence that cannabinoids may be effective for symptoms of pain and/or spasticity in MS. Few reviews reported conclusions for other symptoms. Recent high quality reviews find cannabinoids may have modest effects in MS for pain or spasticity. Future research should include studies with non-cannabinoid comparators; this is an important gap in the evidence.

Broad synthesis / Scoping review

Unclassified

Cannabinoids in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Critical Review of the Evidence.

blocked
Journal JBJS reviews
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 21 Primary studies Primary studies (21 references) 12 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (12 references)

Loading references information