With increased use of cannabis-based products by the public for both recreational and medical use, sports medicine clinicians should be informed of historical context, current legal considerations, and existing evidence with regard to efficacy, safety, and risks in the athletic community.
A review of ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from 2015 to present was conducted with emphasis on the most recent literature using search terms, cannabis, nabiximols, cannabinoids, pain management, THC, CBD, and marijuana. Bibliographies based on original search were utilized to pursue further literature search.
Clinical review.
Level 3.
At present, limited high-quality studies exist for use of cannabinoids for acute pain, chronic pain, or concussion. None of the trials involving cannabinoids included the athletic population. Thus, results from this clinical review are extrapolated to conditions of the sports medicine population. For acute pain, 2 small-randomized double-blinded crossover trials concluded no immediate effect of cannabinoid therapy. More robust evidence exists for treatment of chronic pain conditions through meta-analysis and systemic reviews. Cannabinoid therapy exhibits moderate efficacy as a treatment for some chronic pain conditions. Investigations included a broad spectrum of chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic, musculoskeletal, inflammatory, and central pain conditions, and reveal reduction in pain and improvement of quality of life with limited adverse effects. For concussion, evidence is based on preclinical in vitro and animal models revealing possible neuroprotective effects as well as 2 clinical studies involving the presence of cannabinoids for concussion (some sports-related), but there are no high-quality trials evaluating efficacy for treatment with cannabinoids at this time.
Although various biochemical explanations exist on the use of cannabinoid therapy through modulation of the endocannabinoid system for several medical issues affecting athletes, recommendations from clinicians must be extrapolated from a majority of research done in the nonathletic population. Lack of strong-quality clinical evidence, coupled with inconsistent federal and state law as well as purity issues with cannabis-based products, make it difficult for the sports medicine clinician to widely recommend cannabinoid therapeutics at present. Future larger, higher quality clinical research studies with standardized pure extracts will better guide appropriate medical use going forward. At present, evidence for a multitude of therapeutic applications is emerging for cannabinoid treatment approaches. With emphasis placed on patient-centered clinical decisions, cannabinoids hold promise of treatment for athletes with chronic pain conditions. Clinicians who treat the athletic community must consider legal and ethical issues when discussing and recommending the use of cannabinoids, with acknowledgment of inconsistencies in purity of various formulations and concerns of drug testing.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 May 2026.
All research outputs
#4,521,259
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Sports Health
#510
of 1,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,112
of 442,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Health
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 442,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
