The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Frequent Cannabis use has been linked to a variety of negative mental, physical, and social consequences. We assessed the effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions on Cannabis use reduction in comparison with control conditions. METHODS: Systematic review with two separate meta-analyses. Thirty randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the review, and 21 were included in the meta-analyses. Primary outcome was self-reported Cannabis use at post-treatment and follow-up. Hedges's g was calculated for all comparisons with non-active control. Risk of bias was examined with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: The systematic review included 10 prevention interventions targeting 8138 participants (aged 12 to 20) and 20 treatment interventions targeting 5195 Cannabis users (aged 16 to 40). The meta-analyses showed significantly reduced Cannabis use at post-treatment in the prevention interventions (6 studies, N = 2564, g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54, p = 0.001) and in the treatment interventions (17 comparisons, N = 3813, g = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.02) as compared with controls. The effects of prevention interventions were maintained at follow-ups of up to 12 months (5 comparisons, N = 2445, g = 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33, p < 0.001) but were no longer statistically significant for treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital prevention and treatment interventions showed small, significant reduction effects on Cannabis use in diverse target populations at post-treatment compared to controls. For prevention interventions, the post-treatment effects were maintained at follow-up up to 12 months later.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review and two separate meta-analyses found that digital prevention and treatment interventions produced small, significant reductions in self-reported cannabis use at post-treatment compared with non-active controls. Prevention effects were maintained at follow-up up to 12 months, whereas treatment follow-up effects were no longer statistically significant.
Key findings
- Prevention interventions: 6 studies, N = 2564, showed significantly reduced cannabis use at post-treatment (g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54, p = 0.001); effects remained significant at follow-up up to 12 months (5 comparisons, N = 2445, g = 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33, p < 0.001).
- Treatment interventions: 17 comparisons, N = 3813, showed a small significant post-treatment effect (g = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.02); follow-up effects up to 12 months did not reach significance (9 studies, p = 0.10).
- The systematic review included 10 prevention interventions targeting 8138 participants aged 12 to 20 and 20 treatment interventions targeting 5195 cannabis users aged 16 to 40.
- Among treatment interventions, multi-session interventions such as CBT plus MI produced higher effect sizes (6 comparisons, g = 0.18) than one-session interventions such as PNF, MI, and BI (13 comparisons, g = 0.09), though subgroup differences were not statistically significant.
Methods
- Systematic review with two separate meta-analyses; literature searched up to October 10, 2018, in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, yielding 419 abstracts (307 after duplicates), 70 full-text papers, 30 studies meeting review criteria, and 21 included in meta-analyses.
- Included RCTs of internet- or computer-based prevention and treatment interventions; meta-analyses excluded active control comparisons and included only self-report cannabis use outcomes, assessed at post-treatment and furthest follow-up (3 to 12 months).
- Random-effects meta-analyses calculated Hedges’s g, with I² heterogeneity, funnel plot/Egger’s test/trim-and-fill for publication bias, subgroup analyses, and univariable meta-regressions; risk of bias assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
Limitations
- The paper states that many studies satisfied only a small number of Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria, so findings derive largely from low-quality RCTs; most included studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias, and only two RCTs fully blinded participants and personnel.
- The paper states that limited public availability of RCT protocols or pre-registrations prevented evaluation of possible protocol violations, and that outcome measures varied in time frames and self-report questionnaires, reflecting the lack of an established gold standard for reporting cannabis use frequency or quantity.
- The paper notes that subgroup analyses in conventional meta-analyses have limited power for moderator analyses; the text also makes evident that pooled effects are restricted to non-active control comparisons, and heterogeneity was high for prevention interventions and moderate for treatment interventions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 Own result · 7 Not checked yet · 7 Own interpretation · 6 No basis given · 3 Sources not found · 3 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analyses did not show significant differences between groups (see Table 4).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heterogeneity was moderate (see Fig. 3 and Table 4).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use
plainn = 3,813- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heterogeneity was high (see Fig. 2 and Table 4).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use
plainn = 2,564- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevention interventions that were compared to active comparison conditions (4 studies, n = 6647)and which were therefore not included in the first meta-analysis (see Table 1)reported no significant differences in Cannabis use between conditions at the follow-up assessments.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use
plainn = 6,647- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No publication bias was indicated via assessment of the funnel plot and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill procedure.Egger's test did not indicate an asymmetric funnel plot (p = 0.58).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use
plainn = 2,564- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No publication bias was indicated via the assessment of the funnel plot and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill procedure.Egger's test did not indicate an asymmetric funnel plot (p = 0.89).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use
plainn = 3,813- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The meta-analyses showed significantly reduced Cannabis use at post-treatment in the prevention interventions (6 studies, N = 2564, g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54, p = 0.001)”
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use · plain
“The prevention interventions that were compared to non-active control conditions (6 studies, N = 2564) showed a small significant effect (g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.54) on Cannabis use at post-treatment.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > Abstract
plaindirectn = 2,564 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but were no longer statistically significant for treatment interventions.”
- Also stated in: § 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use · plain
“At the follow-up assessments of up to 12 months (9 studies), effects did not reach significance (p = 0.10).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
- Also stated in: § 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of prevention interventions were maintained at follow-ups of up to 12 months (5 comparisons, N = 2445, g = 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33, p < 0.001)”
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use · plain
“At follow-up assessments up to 12 months later (5 studies, n = 2445), the effect decreased slightly but remained statistically significant (g = 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.33, p = 0.001).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > Abstract
plaindirectn = 2,445 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and in the treatment interventions (17 comparisons, N = 3813, g = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p = 0.02) as compared with controls.”
- Also stated in: § 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use · plain
“Assessing the studies included in the meta-analysis (15 studies, N = 3813), we found a small significant effect (g = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22) in terms of Cannabis use reduction at post-treatment for studies comparing treatment interventions with non-active control conditions.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > Abstract
plaindirectn = 3,813 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
- Also stated in: § 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevention interventions we identified for the systematic review (n = 10) included a total of 8138 participants (n = 4635 in the experimental conditions; n = 3783 in the comparison conditions; Table 1).The mean ages of their participants ranged from 12 to 20.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.2. Characteristics of included prevention interventions
plainn = 8,138- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prevention interventions produce higher effect sizes that are later maintained at follow-up, while the follow-up effects of treatment interventions seem to be clinically negligible.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The univariable meta-regression analyses did not reveal statistically significant associations between the effect sizes of digital interventions and (a) intervention duration in days (slope 0.005; 95% CI -0.0006 to 0.01, p = 0.08), (b) number of sessions in the intervention (slope 0.03; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.06, p = 0.158), or (c) the risk of bias of the studies (slope 0.0007; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07, p”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use
plainn = 3,813- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Digital prevention and treatment interventions produce small, significant Cannabis use reduction effects at post-treatment as compared to non-active controls.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prevention interventions produce higher effect sizes that are later maintained at follow-up, while the follow-up effects of treatment interventions seem to be clinically negligible.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the treatment interventions we observed that multi-session interventions, such as those combining CBT with MI, produced higher effect sizes (6 comparisons, g = 0.18) than one- session interventions using approaches such as PNF, MI, and BI (13 comparisons, g = 0.09)”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prevention interventions produce higher effect sizes that are later maintained at follow-up, while the follow-up effects of treatment interventions seem to be clinically negligible.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most included studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subgroup analyses we conducted did not indicate a statistically significant difference between the groups (Table 4).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.7. The post-treatment and follow-up effects of treatment interventions on Cannabis use
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only two RCTs were able to fully blind participants and personnel by fully automating the randomization procedure”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the previous metaanalyses pooled together active and non-active control comparisons, possibly inducing further heterogeneity and leading to ambiguity as to absolute and relative treatment efficacy.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings hence derive largely from low-quality RCTs.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They may have a small effect, but when implemented on a large scale at low cost they could produce substantial health gains.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Reducing Cannabis use leads to improved health outcomes.
In the paper
“Several metaanalyses have previously shown face-to-face prevention and treatment interventions to be effective in reducing Cannabis use in adolescents and adults (Davis et al., 2015;Gates et al., 2016;Porath-Waller et al., 2010).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davis et al., 2015;Gates et al., 2016;Porath-Waller et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that digital prevention interventions are a suitable approach to achieve a lasting small reduction in Cannabis use in comparison with non-active control conditions.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yet been conducted to assess digital prevention and treatment interventions in terms of Cannabis use reduction, as was observed in two prior metaanalyses (Olmos et al., 2018;Tait et al., 2013).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Olmos et al., 2018;Tait et al., 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We calculated the number of RCTs needed to achieve adequate statistical power to determine relevant post-treatment and follow-up effects (Borenstein et al., 2009).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 2.6. Power calculation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borenstein et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variation in outcome measures reflects the lack of an established gold standard for reporting Cannabis use frequency or quantity”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although toxicology screening is a reliable way to measure heavy Cannabis use, it is less reliable for detecting mild use or frequency of use (Taylor et al., 2017).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 2.2. Eligibility criteria
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor et al., 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“delaying the onset of Cannabis use in adolescents could significantly improve health outcomes that will last throughout adulthood (Lisdahl et al., 2013).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lisdahl et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we suggest that digital interventions have the potential to decrease Cannabis use in a variety of target users and different settings.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 5. Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The effects of digital interventions observed in the included studies generalize to a variety of target users and different settings.
In the paper
“digital prevention and treatment interventions still produce smaller effect sizes than face-to-face prevention (d = 0.58) and treatment interventions (g = 0.49) (Davis et al., 2015;Porath-Waller et al., 2010).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davis et al., 2015;Porath-Waller et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
- Rests on an assumption: The effect sizes from digital interventions can be validly compared with effect sizes from face-to-face interventions reported in other meta-analyses.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
- Probably not a substantial claim. 5
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirty randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the review, and 21 were included in the meta-analyses.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1. Selection and inclusion of studies · plain
“A total of 30 studies met all criteria for the systematic review (10 prevention interventions and 20 treatment interventions) and 21 studies for the meta-analyses (6 prevention and 15 treatment interventions).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.1. Selection and inclusion of studies · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 30 studies met all criteria for the systematic review (10 prevention interventions and 20 treatment interventions) and 21 studies for the meta-analyses (6 prevention and 15 treatment interventions).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.1. Selection and inclusion of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatment interventions we identified for the systematic review (n = 20) recruited a total of 5195 participants (n = 3007 in the experimental conditions; n = 2188 in the comparison conditions; Table 2).The mean ages of the participants ranged from 16 to 40”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.5. Characteristics of included treatment interventions
plainn = 5,195- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, three studies fulfilled one criterion of the possible seven, two studies fulfilled two criteria, and one study fulfilled three criteria.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.3. Quality assessment of the prevention interventions
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, two studies fulfilled one of the seven possible criteria, two studies fulfilled two criteria, three studies fulfilled three criteria, four studies fulfilled four criteria, two studies fulfilled five criteria, and one study fulfilled seven criteria.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.6. Quality assessment of the treatment interventions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The univariable meta-regression analyses did not reveal significant associations between the effect sizes of the digital interventions and (a) intervention duration in days (slope 0.003; 95% CI -0.004 to 0.01, p = 0.421), (b) number of sessions in the intervention (slope 0.015; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06, p = 0.548), or (c) risk of bias of the studies (slope -0.03; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.28, p = 0.868).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.4. Post-treatment and follow-up effects of prevention interventions on Cannabis use
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risk of bias was independently evaluated by two of the authors (N.B. and L.L.); in the event of disagreement, consensus was reached by discussion.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 2.3. Quality assessment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The study by Tait and colleagues (Tait et al., 2013) concluded that digital interventions appeared to effectively reduce Cannabis use in adolescents and adults at post-treatment, albeit with a limited number of available RCTs”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“The meta-analysis by Olmos and colleagues (Olmos et al., 2018) came to a similar conclusion after identifying 9 RCTs”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tait et al., 2013
- Not checked yetcites Olmos et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that digital prevention and treatment interventions are effective in reducing Cannabis use at post-treatment, with prevention interventions producing a larger pooled effect size for Cannabis use reduction than treatment interventions.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
- Rests on an assumption: The pooled effect sizes from the separate prevention and treatment meta-analyses are comparable enough to conclude that prevention interventions produce a larger effect than treatment interventions.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of outliers was explored by assessing whether effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the studies overlapped with the 95% CI of the pooled effect size; in cases where outliers were observed, we conducted an additional analysis without the outliers.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 2.5. Meta-analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These previous meta-analyses did not distinguish in their inclusion criteria between prevention and treatment interventions, whichgiven the substantial differences, most notably in terms of target groupsmight have complicated the interpretation of the provided pooled effect estimates of Cannabis use reduction.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The search and screening were performed by two of the authors (N.B. and L.L.) independently; in cases of disagreement, consensus was reached by discussion.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 2.1. Identification of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, by removing barriers such as distance and stigmatization, such interventions can make prevention and treatment available independent of time and place, thus lowering the threshold to access care (Taylor and Luce, 2003)”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor and Luce, 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We assessed publication bias by visually inspecting the funnel plot.To assess whether the bias captured by the funnel plot was significant, we used Egger's linear regression test of the intercept (Egger et al., 1997).Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill procedure (Duval and Tweedie, 2000) was used to account for potentially missing studies.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 2.5. Meta-analyses
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Follow-up assessments indicated that the post-treatment effects were sustained for up to 12 months for the prevention interventions but not for the treatment interventions.”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
The paper relies on this without support.
The self-reported cannabis use outcomes from included studies, despite varying time frames and questionnaires, can be validly pooled in meta-analysis.
“The applied intervention outcomes varied as to the time frames measured (with self-reported frequencies ranging from Cannabis use in the past week to the past six months) and the self-report questionnaires employed.”
“The variation in outcome measures reflects the lack of an established gold standard for reporting Cannabis use frequency or quantity”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pooled effect sizes from the separate prevention and treatment meta-analyses are comparable enough to conclude that prevention interventions produce a larger effect than treatment interventions.
“We found that digital prevention and treatment interventions are effective in reducing Cannabis use at post-treatment, with prevention interventions producing a larger pooled effect size for Cannabis use reduction than treatment interventions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The effect sizes from digital interventions can be validly compared with effect sizes from face-to-face interventions reported in other meta-analyses.
“digital prevention and treatment interventions still produce smaller effect sizes than face-to-face prevention (d = 0.58) and treatment interventions (g = 0.49) (Davis et al., 2015;Porath-Waller et al., 2010).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The effects of digital interventions observed in the included studies generalize to a variety of target users and different settings.
“we suggest that digital interventions have the potential to decrease Cannabis use in a variety of target users and different settings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reducing Cannabis use leads to improved health outcomes.
“They may have a small effect, but when implemented on a large scale at low cost they could produce substantial health gains.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A meta- analysis of digital inter ventions for cannabis use disorder found that cannabis use was significantly reduced following both prevention and treatment interventions as compared with controls.”
From Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention (2023) · cites this paper as [257]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, while the ef fects of prevention interventions remained significant at follow- ups of up to 12 months, effects of treatment interventions did not 257 .”
From Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention (2023) · cites this paper as [257]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“included a total of 8138 participants (n = 4635 in the experimental conditions; n = 3783 in the comparison conditions; Table 1)”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.2. Characteristics of included prevention interventions
Reported 8138 · recomputed 8418
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Eleven comparisons were made, six of which were with non-active comparison conditions (assessment-only, health information brochure) and four with active conditions (drug prevention-as-usual).”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.2. Characteristics of included prevention interventions
Reported 11 · recomputed 10
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.5. Characteristics of included treatment interventions
“other studies reported the mean ASSIST Cannabis score (n = 4)”
§ Short-and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and metaanalysis > 3.5. Characteristics of included treatment interventions
“the mean ASSIST Cannabis score was 10.6 (SD = 6.9), based on five studies and 1016 individuals.”
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Meany, J. O., Rogers, C. R., Dorfman, E., Gordon, T., & Hobbes, N. (1951) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707825 · Cited by 4,192
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
(1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 · Cited by 2,570
Mediators and Moderators of Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials
Kraemer, H. C., Wilson, G. T., Fairburn, C. G., & Agras, W. S. (2002) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.877 · Cited by 2,562
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Schwinn, 2010, Preventing drug abuse among adolescent girls: outcome data from an internet-based intervention, Prev. Sci., 11, 24, 10.1007/s11121-009-0146-9 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder
Connor, J. P., Stjepanović, D., Le Foll, B., Hoch, E., Budney, A. J., & Hall, W. D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00247-4 · Cited by 552
Volkow, N. D., & Blanco, C. (2023) · World psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.21073 · Cited by 503
Philippe, T. J., Sikder, N., Jackson, A., Koblanski, M. E., Liow, E., Pilarinos, A., & Vasarhelyi, K. (2022) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/35159 · Cited by 436
Rauschenberg, C., Schick, A., Hirjak, D., Seidler, A., Paetzold, I., Apfelbacher, C., Riedel-Heller, S. G., & Reininghaus, U. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23365 · Cited by 205
Public health digitalization in Europe
Odone, A., Buttigieg, S., Ricciardi, W., Muscat, N. A., & Staines, A. S. (2019) · European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz161 · Cited by 178
Metadata
- Authors
- Boumparis, N., Loheide-Niesmann, L., Blankers, M., Ebert, D. D., Korf, D., Schaub, M. P., Spijkerman, R., Tait, R. J., & Riper, H.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Parnassia Groep (NL)
- Curtin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Boumparis, Nikolaos
- ORCID
- Venue
- Drug and Alcohol Dependence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 200
- Pages
- 82-94
- ISSN
- 0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2945809486
- Semantic Scholar
- 98cf294ded57ca214e1322d0e879cc89acd2b70d
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Keywords
- cannabis use reduction, digital interventions, cannabis use disorder, adolescents, young adults, maintenance of treatment effects, follow-up outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Behavior Therapy, Marijuana Abuse, Child, Humans, Marijuana Smoking, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
