ReviewDrug and alcohol review2026
Higher THC Concentration Medicinal Cannabis Products Efficacy and Safety Considerations: A Rapid Review.
Review in Drug and alcohol review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- International Policy Approaches for Higher THC Cannabis Products: Are They Applicable to the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Framework?Drug and alcohol review · 2026Review
- A retrospective analysis of voluntary adverse event reports to the TGA with higher THC medicinal cannabis products.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
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
Abstract
issuesHigher delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration medicinal cannabis products are characterised by a higher THC and minimal cannabidiol (CBD) content. This rapid review aims to systematically summarise and evaluate the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of higher THC potency medicinal cannabis products relevant to the Australian market in adult populations. APPROACH: The rapid literature review protocol was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HNFUT. The comprehensive search (1-January-2014-30-July-2024) included Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Eligible studies (randomised controlled trials and observational studies) were screened by two independent reviewers and then extracted. KEY
findingsWe identified 9969 records, resulting in 15 studies (six RCTs and nine observational), with THC concentrations of 16%-22% that met inclusion criteria. Studies examining efficacy for pain (n = 4), ulcerative colitis (n = 1) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 1) reported mixed outcomes. Reported adverse events included psychiatric, nervous system and gastrointestinal effects. Validated cannabis use disorder (CUD) screening tools were notably absent from the included studies. IMPLICATIONS: Few studies have assessed products equivalent to the Australian Category 5 medicinal cannabis product definition, with most having THC concentrations lower than those available for prescription in Australia, including products reported to contain up to 88% THC. High-quality RCTs and longitudinal studies that incorporate validated CUD screening tools are needed.
conclusionNo evidence was found on safety or efficacy of prescribed Category 5 medicinal cannabis products with THC concentrations above 22% w/w (220 mg/g).
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.