ArticleJournal of cannabis research2025
Patterns of medicinal cannabis prescriptions in diverse patient populations: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of medicinal cannabis is increasing worldwide and has applications in managing a wide range of conditions, including neurological, rheumatological, and gastrointestinal diseases. Despite its growing prevalence, there are limited data on patterns of cannabis prescription across varying disease groups and demographic subgroups.
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study analysed cannabis usage patterns among 263 patients from the cannabis user clinic at Rabin Medical center (RMC), a tertiary hospital in Israel. To minimise the inclusion of recreational cannabis users, only patients aged 30 years and older were included. Patients were categorised into three groups based on their primary medical condition: neurological (n = 63), rheumatological (n = 106), and gastrointestinal (n = 94). Data collected included: demographic information, cannabis dosage, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, cultivated variety preference (sativa vs. Indica), and method of consumption (smoking vs. oil). Statistical analyses were conducted using ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and t-tests to compare cannabis prescription patterns between disease and demographic groups.
resultsSignificant differences in cannabis prescription patterns were observed across disease groups. Patients with gastrointestinal conditions were prescribed the highest mean monthly cannabis dose (22.26 ± 13.60 g), while those with neurological conditions had the highest oil consumption (31.75%). Sex-based differences were notable, with male patients being prescribed significantly higher doses of cannabis (25.48 ± 15.15 g) and higher THC content (14 ± 6.56%) compared to female patients (17.32 ± 9.93 g; THC: 11.39 ± 6.48%). DISCUSSION: The study highlights variations in cannabis prescription patterns based on both medical conditions and demographic factors. Male patients received higher doses and THC-rich formulations, while patients with gastrointestinal conditions had the highest cannabis prescription overall. These findings suggest the need for individualised cannabis therapy based on patient characteristics and the specific condition being treated.
conclusionMedicinal cannabis usage patterns vary significantly across disease and demographic groups. Personalised cannabis treatment plans, informed by both clinical and demographic factors, are essential to optimising patient outcomes. Further research is needed to develop more precise guidelines for prescribing medicinal cannabis.
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.