ArticleCadernos de saude publica2026
[Therapeutic indications in lawsuits seeking medical Cannabis in Brazil: a cross-sectional study in light of scientific evidence].
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the rapid expansion of the medical Cannabis products (MCP) market has led to increased consumption and a rise in lawsuits seeking access to MCP in Brazil. This study aimed to analyze therapeutic indications cited in lawsuits filed against the Brazil's Federal Government requesting MCP and to assess these indications in light of the available scientific evidence. This cross-sectional study was conducted analyzing cases filed between 2020 and 2023. Additionally, a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis (RQES) was performed addressing the medical Cannabis indications reported in the lawsuits. Across 2,024 lawsuits, 1,962 primary diagnoses were identified. The most frequent conditions were epilepsy (36.24%), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (25.54%), and pain (8.92%). A high proportion of claimants in the 1 to 19 age range was observed for epilepsy, ASD, paralysis, and intellectual disabilities. The RQES retrieved 115 reviews that applied quality assessment tools and reported on the effectiveness of MCP. The most frequently studied conditions were pain (40.86%), neoplasms (10.43%), and epilepsy (9.56%). Only five diagnoses - epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, anxiety, neoplasms, and pain - had some degree of support in the literature, varying in strength and with a low proportion of high-quality reviews. The substantial pressure from health-related litigation and the large number of indications lacking supporting evidence highlight a significant public health risk that has not been addressed in a timely manner in Brazil. Regulation of MCP and appropriate prescribing practices are urgently needed, restricting public provision to indications supported by robust evidence.
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.