| Title |
Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11481-015-9600-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. E. Lynch, Mark A. Ware |
| Abstract |
An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews reporting on health care outcomes. Eleven trials published since our last review met inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was excellent. Seven of the trials demonstrated a significant analgesic effect. Several trials also demonstrated improvement in secondary outcomes (e.g., sleep, muscle stiffness and spasticity). Adverse effects most frequently reported such as fatigue and dizziness were mild to moderate in severity and generally well tolerated. This review adds further support that currently available cannabinoids are safe, modestly effective analgesics that provide a reasonable therapeutic option in the management of chronic non-cancer pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 | 7 | 27% |
| Australia | 3 | 12% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| Italy | 2 | 8% |
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 323 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 50 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 11% |
| Other | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 9% |
| Other | 64 | 20% |
| Unknown | 76 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 23 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 6% |
| Psychology | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 61 | 19% |
| Unknown | 93 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 167. 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 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#241,977
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology
#8
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,656
of 276,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 276,159 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 94% of its contemporaries.