CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 451Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Opioid Use

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Ware, M. A., Wang, T., Shapiro, S., Robinson, A., Ducruet, T., Huynh, T., Gamsa, A., Bennett, G. J., Collet, J.-P.·2010·Canadian Medical Association Journal
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.091414PMC PMC2950205
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain affects 1%-2% of the adult population and is often refractory to standard pharmacologic treatment. Patients with chronic pain have reported using smoked cannabis to relieve pain, improve sleep and improve mood. METHODS: Adults with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to receive cannabis at four potencies (0%, 2.5%, 6% and 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol) over four 14-day periods in a crossover trial. Participants inhaled a single 25-mg dose through a pipe three times daily for the first five days in each cycle, followed by a nine-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale. We recorded effects on mood, sleep and quality of life, as well as adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 23 participants (mean age 45.4 [standard deviation 12.3] years, 12 women [52%]), of whom 21 completed the trial. The average daily pain intensity, measured on the 11-point numeric rating scale, was lower on the prespecified primary contrast of 9.4% v. 0% tetrahydrocannabinol (5.4 v. 6.1, respectively; difference = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-1.4). Preparations with intermediate potency yielded intermediate but nonsignificant degrees of relief. Participants receiving 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol reported improved ability to fall asleep (easier, p = 0.001; faster, p < 0.001; more drowsy, p = 0.003) and improved quality of sleep (less wakefulness, p = 0.01) relative to 0% tetrahydrocannabinol. We found no differences in mood or quality of life. The most common drug-related adverse events during the period when participants received 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol were headache, dry eyes, burning sensation in areas of neuropathic pain, dizziness, numbness and cough. CONCLUSION: A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol herbal cannabis three times daily for five days reduced the intensity of pain, improved sleep and was well tolerated. Further long-term safety and efficacy studies are indicated. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register no. ISRCTN68314063).

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.091414

Cites

37 of 37 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

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidelines. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. E6(R1):1996; Switzerland. Available at: www .ich .org /cache /compo /276 -254-1 .html (accessed 2010 Aug. 18).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ware, M. A., Wang, T., Shapiro, S., Robinson, A., Ducruet, T., Huynh, T., Gamsa, A., Bennett, G. J., & Collet, J.-P.
Affiliations
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Publisher
CMA Impact Inc.
Published
2010-08-30
Volume
182
Issue
14
Pages
E694-E701
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
DOI
10.1503/cmaj.091414
PMC
PMC2950205
OpenAlex
W2120142285
Semantic Scholar
6125159a7712bfe53b79c9d5d0c060fe71bcf8a6
Cited by
450
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
12.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McGill University
  • Louise and Alan Edwards Foundation
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (JHM-50014)
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
chronic neuropathic pain, cannabis smoking, tetrahydrocannabinol, post-traumatic neuropathic pain, pain intensity, sleep quality, mood, quality of life, adverse events, cannabis potency, cannabinoids, headache, dizziness, dry eye, cough, numbness, burnout, burnout prevention, burnout intervention, burnout symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Marijuana Smoking, Middle Aged, Neuralgia, Pain Measurement, Placebos, Quality of Life, Sleep, Dronabinol, Linear Models, Treatment Outcome, 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