| Title |
The Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Treating Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis: a Systematic Review of Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11910-018-0814-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suzanne Nielsen, Rada Germanos, Megan Weier, John Pollard, Louisa Degenhardt, Wayne Hall, Nicholas Buckley, Michael Farrell |
| Abstract |
Pharmaceutical cannabinoids such as nabiximols, nabilone and dronabinol, and plant-based cannabinoids have been investigated for their therapeutic potential in treating multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms. This review of reviews aimed to synthesise findings from high quality systematic reviews that examined the safety and effectiveness of cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis. We examined the outcomes of disability and disability progression, pain, spasticity, bladder function, tremor/ataxia, quality of life and adverse effects. We identified 11 eligible systematic reviews providing data from 32 studies, including 10 moderate to high quality RCTs. Five reviews concluded that there was sufficient evidence that cannabinoids may be effective for symptoms of pain and/or spasticity in MS. Few reviews reported conclusions for other symptoms. Recent high quality reviews find cannabinoids may have modest effects in MS for pain or spasticity. Future research should include studies with non-cannabinoid comparators; this is an important gap in the evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 13% |
| Australia | 5 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 18% |
| Scientists | 7 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 371 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 61 | 16% |
| Researcher | 44 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 70 | 19% |
| Unknown | 92 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 38 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 24 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 6% |
| Psychology | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 69 | 19% |
| Unknown | 108 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2024.
All research outputs
#699,905
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#26
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,313
of 455,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 455,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.