CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 314Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Opioid Use

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Low-Dose Vaporized Cannabis Significantly Improves Neuropathic Pain

Open access
Wilsey, Barth, Marcotte, Thomas, Deutsch, Reena, Gouaux, Ben, Sakai, Staci, Donaghe, Haylee·2013·The Journal of Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.10.009PMC PMC3566631
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Unlabelled We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study evaluating the analgesic efficacy of vaporized cannabis in subjects, the majority of whom were experiencing neuropathic pain despite traditional treatment. Thirty-nine patients with central and peripheral neuropathic pain underwent a standardized procedure for inhaling medium-dose (3.53%), low-dose (1.29%), or placebo cannabis with the primary outcome being visual analog scale pain intensity. Psychoactive side effects and neuropsychological performance were also evaluated. Mixed-effects regression models demonstrated an analgesic response to vaporized cannabis. There was no significant difference between the 2 active dose groups' results (P > .7). The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve 30% pain reduction was 3.2 for placebo versus low-dose, 2.9 for placebo versus medium-dose, and 25 for medium- versus low-dose. As these NNTs are comparable to those of traditional neuropathic pain medications, cannabis has analgesic efficacy with the low dose being as effective a pain reliever as the medium dose. Psychoactive effects were minimal and well tolerated, and neuropsychological effects were of limited duration and readily reversible within 1 to 2 hours. Vaporized cannabis, even at low doses, may present an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant neuropathic pain.Perspective The analgesia obtained from a low dose of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (1.29%) in patients, most of whom were experiencing neuropathic pain despite conventional treatments, is a clinically significant outcome. In general, the effect sizes on cognitive testing were consistent with this minimal dose. As a result, one might not anticipate a significant impact on daily functioning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.10.009

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 64 references

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Beaver, 1997, Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana
  2. Gieringer, 1996, Marijuana research: Waterpipe study, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Bulletin, 6, 59

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wilsey, B., Marcotte, T., Deutsch, R., Gouaux, B., Sakai, S., & Donaghe, H.
Affiliations
  • VA Northern California Health Care System (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
136-148
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpain.2012.10.009
PMC
PMC3566631
OpenAlex
W2167149788
Cited by
314
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 11
FWCI
11.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of California, Davis
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA030424)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024146)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
vaporized cannabis, neuropathic pain, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, analgesic efficacy, treatment-resistant pain, neuropsychological performance, number needed to treat
MeSH terms
Administration, Inhalation, Adult, Affect, Cannabis, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hyperalgesia, Male, Phytotherapy, Middle Aged, Neuralgia, Neuropsychological Tests, Pain Measurement, Socioeconomic Factors, Dronabinol, Volatilization, Linear Models, Treatment Outcome, Pain Threshold, Patient Selection, Cross-Over Studies

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.

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