Cited by 62Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchPain Management and Opioid UsePain Mechanisms and Treatments

Cannabinergic Pain Medicine: A Concise Clinical Primer and Survey of Randomized-controlled Trial Results

Aggarwal, Sunil K.·2013·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This article attempts to cover pragmatic clinical considerations involved in the use of cannabinergic medicines in pain practice, including geographical and historical considerations, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse effects, drug interactions, indications, and contraindications. Topics include molecular considerations such as the 10-fold greater abundance of cannabinoid type 1 receptors compared to µ-opioid receptors in the central nervous system and anatomic distributions of cannabinoid receptors in pain circuits. METHODS: The article uses a narrative review methodology drawing from authoritative textbooks and journals of cannabinoid medicine, Food and Drug Administration-approved cannabinoid drug labels, and current and historical pain medicine literature to address core clinical considerations. To survey the current evidence base for pain management with cannabinergic medicines, a targeted PubMed search was performed to survey the percentage of positive and negative published randomized-controlled trial (RCT) results with this class of pain medicines, using appropriate search limit parameters and the keyword search string "cannabinoid OR cannabis-based AND pain." RESULTS: Of the 56 hits generated, 38 published RCTs met the survey criteria. Of these, 71% (27) concluded that cannabinoids had empirically demonstrable and statistically significant pain-relieving effects, whereas 29% (11) did not. DISCUSSION: Cannabis and other cannabinergic medicines' efficacies for relieving pain have been studied in RCTs, most of which have demonstrated a beneficial effect for this indication, although most trials are short-term. Adverse effects are generally nonserious and well tolerated. Incorporating cannabinergic medicine topics into pain medicine education seems warranted and continuing clinical research and empiric treatment trials are appropriate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e31824c5e4c

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aggarwal, S. K.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Aggarwal, Sunil K.
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2013-02
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
162-171
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034656958
Cited by
62
References
103
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
cannabis-based medicines, pain management, cannabinoid receptors, cannabinoid type 1 receptor, mu-opioid receptor, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse effects, drug interactions, indications and contraindications, randomized controlled trials, pain medicine education
MeSH terms
Cannabinoids, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, PubMed, Pain Management

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