Cited by 645Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchEpilepsy research and treatmentForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis

An update on safety and side effects of cannabidiol: a review of clinical data and relevant animal studies

Open access
Iffland, Kerstin, Grotenhermen, Franjo·2017·Cannabis & Cannabinoid Research

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: This literature survey aims to extend the comprehensive survey performed by Bergamaschi et al. in 2011 on cannabidiol (CBD) safety and side effects. Apart from updating the literature, this article focuses on clinical studies and CBD potential interactions with other drugs. Results: In general, the often described favorable safety profile of CBD in humans was confirmed and extended by the reviewed research. The majority of studies were performed for treatment of epilepsy and psychotic disorders. Here, the most commonly reported side effects were tiredness, diarrhea, and changes of appetite/weight. In comparison with other drugs, used for the treatment of these medical conditions, CBD has a better side effect profile. This could improve patients' compliance and adherence to treatment. CBD is often used as adjunct therapy. Therefore, more clinical research is warranted on CBD action on hepatic enzymes, drug transporters, and interactions with other drugs and to see if this mainly leads to positive or negative effects, for example, reducing the needed clobazam doses in epilepsy and therefore clobazam's side effects. Conclusion: This review also illustrates that some important toxicological parameters are yet to be studied, for example, if CBD has an effect on hormones. Additionally, more clinical trials with a greater number of participants and longer chronic CBD administration are still lacking.

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 · 10.1089/can.2016.0034

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Most common side effects reported for CBD are tiredness, diarrhea and chances of appetite, but CBD can still be considered as having better side effects profile than most other drugs.

    “The most common side effects reported for CBD are tiredness, diarrhea and chances of appetite [38], but CBD can still be considered as having better side effects profile than most other drugs [13].”

    From Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Technology for Recovering Valuable Phytochemicals from Cannabis sativa L. and Valorization of Its Biomass for Food Applications (2023) · cites this paper as [38]

    The citation [13] is attached to the comparison of side-effect profiles. The review’s Abstract says CBD has a better side-effect profile than other drugs used to treat epilepsy and psychotic disorders, and its Chronic CBD Studies in Humans section reports a favorable comparison with amisulpride. It does not establish a better profile than most other drugs generally. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Acute and chronic administration of CBD by various routes to healthy volunteers and patients with different clinical conditions did not induce significant adverse effects.

    “According to comprehensive reviews, acute and chronic administration of CBD by various routes (oral, inhaled, intravenous) to healthy volunteers and patients with different clinical conditions did not induce significant adverse effects (50, 51), especially because a conversion of oral cannabidiol to THC seems not to occur in humans (52).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [68]Leweke F, Koethe D, Gerth C Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic: a double-blind, controlled clinical trial of cannabidiol versus amisulpiride in acute schizophrenia. In: 15th annual symposium on cannabinoids Cannabinoid Research Society: Clearwater Beach, FL, 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iffland, K., & Grotenhermen, F.
Affiliations
Nova Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
Iffland, Kerstin
Venue
Cannabis & Cannabinoid Research
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
139-154
ISSN
  • 2378-8763 (ISSN-L)
  • 2578-5125
OpenAlex
W2693016255
Cited by
645
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Keywords
cannabidiol, drug safety, adverse effects, drug interactions, epilepsy, psychosis, adjunctive therapy, clobazam, liver enzymes, drug transporters, medication adherence, endocrine effects

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