Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Pilot Study of Cannabidiol-rich Botanical Extract in the Symptomatic Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis

Irving, Peter M, Iqbal, Tariq, Nwokolo, Chuka, Subramanian, Sreedhar, Bloom, Stuart, Prasad, Neeraj, Hart, Ailsa, Murray, Charles, Lindsay, James O, Taylor, Adam, Barron, Rachel, Wright, Stephen·2018·Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Abstract

Background: Cannabidiol (CBD) exhibits anti-inflammatory properties that could improve disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease. This proof-of-concept study assessed efficacy, safety and tolerability of CBD-rich botanical extract in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. Methods: Patients aged 18 years or older, with left-sided or extensive UC, Mayo scores of 4-10 (endoscopy scores ≥1), and on stable 5-aminosalicylic acid dosing, were randomized to 10-weeks' CBD-rich botanical extract or placebo capsules. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients in remission after treatment. Statistical testing was 2-sided, using a 10% significance level. Results: Patients were less tolerant of CBD-rich botanical extract compared with placebo, taking on average one-third fewer capsules, and having more compliance-related protocol deviations (principally insufficient exposure), prompting identification of a per protocol (PP) analysis set. The primary endpoint was negative; end of treatment remission rates were similar for CBD-rich botanical extract (28%) and placebo (26%). However, PP analysis of total and partial Mayo scores favoured CBD-rich botanical extract (P = 0.068 and P = 0.038, respectively). Additionally, PP analyses of the more subjective physician's global assessment of illness severity, subject global impression of change, and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes were improved for patients taking CBD-rich botanical extract (P = 0.069, P = 0.003, and P = 0.065, respectively). Adverse events (AEs) were predominantly mild/moderate with many in the CBD-rich botanical extract group potentially attributable to the ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol content. A greater proportion of gastrointestinal-related AEs, indicative of UC worsening, was seen on placebo. Conclusion: Although the primary endpoint was not reached, several signals suggest CBD-rich botanical extract may be beneficial for symptomatic treatment of UC.

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 · 10.1093/ibd/izy002

Cites

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

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

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Irving, P. M., Iqbal, T., Nwokolo, C., Subramanian, S., Bloom, S., Prasad, N., Hart, A., Murray, C., Lindsay, J. O., Taylor, A., Barron, R., & Wright, S.
Venue
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Published
2018-03-10
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
714-724
ISSN
  • 1078-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-4844
OpenAlex
W2792135086
Cited by
164
References
0
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Pilot Study of Cannabidiol-rich Botanical Extract in the Symptomatic Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ibd/izy002
The paper
Irving, P. M., Iqbal, T., Nwokolo, C., Subramanian, S., Bloom, S., Prasad, N., Hart, A., Murray, C., Lindsay, J. O., Taylor, A., Barron, R., & Wright, S. (2018). A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Pilot Study of Cannabidiol-rich Botanical Extract in the Symptomatic Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izy002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.