ArticleJournal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology2025
Emergency Department Patients Presenting after Oral versus Inhaled Cannabinoid use: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCannabinoid-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, yet little has been published about how the route of cannabinoid use (inhaled versus oral) affects ED presentations. We sought to compare ED visits from inhaled versus oral cannabinoid use.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using ED patients with a cannabinoid related diagnosis from January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2023 from a single hospital system in Florida. We performed manual chart review to categorize visits into "unlikely", "possibly", or "highly likely" to be due to acute cannabinoid use. For our primary analysis, we used the "highly likely" group to compare the presentations and outcomes of patients who had used oral cannabinoids versus inhaled. Our primary outcome was hospital admission.
resultsWe deemed 303 patient visits "highly likely" to be from acute cannabinoids: 59 (19.5%) inhaled and 244 (80.5%) oral. Zero patients in the inhaled group were admitted compared to 15 (6.2%) in the oral group, a difference of 6.2% (95% CI 3.1-9.2%), p = 0.05. Additionally, 65 (26.7%) of the oral group reported using cannabinoids unintentionally including 8 housekeepers who ate food products left by hotel guests. Comparatively, 4 (6.8%) of the inhaled group unintentionally used cannabinoids (difference 19.9% [95% CI 11.4-28.3]).
conclusionsMost patients who presented to the ED for the effects of acute cannabinoids had used them orally. Compared to patients who had inhaled cannabinoids, those who used them orally required more ED diagnostic resources and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for additional evaluation or treatment. From a public health perspective, increased regulation of edible cannabinoid products may be needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.