ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Pharmacovigilance in medical cannabis therapy among physicians in Poland: pharmacovigilance knowledge, ADR reporting practice and cannabis-related safety reporting.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical cannabis is increasingly used in routine care, but its pharmacovigilance profile remains difficult to monitor because products, formulations, doses, routes of administration and clinical indications vary substantially. This study assessed pharmacovigilance knowledge, adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting practice and attitudes toward medical cannabis among physicians in Poland, with particular attention to factors associated with ADR reporting. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analytical survey among 253 clinically active physicians in Poland using an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. The survey covered demographic and professional characteristics, pharmacovigilance knowledge and awareness, general ADR reporting, clinical exposure to medical cannabis and cannabis-related safety perceptions. Crude associations were examined using chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests for cannabis-specific sparse-data comparisons, Cramer's V, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals, with Benjamini-Hochberg false-discovery-rate adjustment. For the primary outcome of general ADR reporting, a forced-entry multivariable logistic regression included PV-purpose knowledge, any medical specialization, professional experience greater than 10 years, hospital/university workplace, medical cannabis exposure and sex. Cannabis-specific reporting was analyzed separately using exact methods because only 19 events occurred. Results: Most respondents reported clinical exposure to medical cannabis (81.0%), whereas only 13.4% reported adequate formal education in this area. In crude analysis, knowledge of the purpose of pharmacovigilance showed the strongest association with ADR reporting (OR 46.58; 95% CI 21.20-102.32; Conclusions: In this sample, PV-purpose knowledge, medical specialization and hospital/university workplace retained positive associations with general ADR reporting after multivariable adjustment. Crude associations for longer professional experience and medical cannabis exposure were attenuated after adjustment. The combination of frequent medical cannabis exposure and rare cannabis-specific ADR reporting suggests an exposure-reporting gap. The observational findings support practical, therapy-specific pharmacovigilance training but should not be interpreted causally.
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.