Cited by 170Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchTraffic and Road SafetyForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

Determining the magnitude and duration of acute Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)-induced driving and cognitive impairment: A systematic and meta-analytic review

Open access
McCartney, Danielle, Arkell, Thomas R., Irwin, Christopher, McGregor, Iain S.·2021·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

The increasing legal availability of cannabis has important implications for road safety. This systematic review characterised the acute effects of Δ9-THC on driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills, with a particular focus on the duration of Δ9-THC-induced impairment. Eighty publications and 1534 outcomes were reviewed. Several measures of driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills (e.g. lateral control, tracking, divided attention) demonstrated impairment in meta-analyses of “peak” Δ9-THC effects (p’s<0.05). Multiple meta-regression analyses further found that regular cannabis users experianced less impairment than ‘other’ (mostly occasional) cannabis users (p = 0.003) and that the magnitude of oral (n = 243 effect estimates [EE]) and inhaled (n = 481 EEs) Δ9-THC-induced impairment depended on various factors (dose, post-treatment time interval, the performance domain (skill) assessed) in other cannabis users (p’s<0.05). The latter model predicted that most driving-related cognitive skills would ‘recover’ (Hedges’ g=–0.25) within ∼5-hs (and almost all within ∼7-hs) of inhaling 20 mg of Δ9-THC; oral Δ9-THC-induced impairment may take longer to subside. These results suggest individuals should wait at least 5 -hs following inhaled cannabis use before performing safety-sensitive tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.003

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCartney, D., Arkell, T. R., Irwin, C., & McGregor, I. S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
McCartney, Danielle
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
126
Pages
175-193
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3121363966
Cited by
170
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 14
FWCI
3.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • University of Sydney
  • Griffith University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Keywords
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabis, driving performance, cognitive impairment, road safety, inhaled cannabis, divided attention, lateral control, tracking, dosage effect
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Marijuana Smoking, Psychomotor Performance, Dronabinol, Cognitive Dysfunction

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