Extraction form for project: Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Design Details

1. Trial Name
2. What kind of study is this?
3. Month/Year Study Included
Add the month and year the study was included in the review
4. Setting
List country or continent
5. Study Design
6. Crossover Design
Is this a crossover trial?
7. Pain Population
8. Pain Condition
Add specific condition here if specified
9. Prior Cannabis Exposure
10. Age Measure (Mean, Median)
11. Age, Years
Input the mean or median age for the entire sample
12. Female %
Input the whole number here for the entire study sample - no need to add %
13. Race, White %
Add % White for entire sample and round to nearest whole number - no need to add %
14. Race, Black %
Add % Black for entire sample and round to nearest whole number - no need to add %
15. Race, Hispanic/Latino %
Add % Hispanic/Latino for entire sample and round to nearest whole number - no need to add %
16. Race, Asian %
17. Race, Other %
Add % Other Race for entire sample and round to nearest whole number - no need to add %
18. Pain Duration Measure (Mean, Median)
19. Pain Duration, Months
20. Psychiatric Comorbidity %
Add % psychiatric comorbidity for entire sample and round to nearest whole number - no need to add %. If excluded from inclusion criteria, say "Excluded"
21. Opioid Use at Baseline
Add information for opioid use at baseline.
22. N Randomized
23. N Analyzed
24. Treatment Duration, weeks
25. Assessment Time Category
26. Funding Source
27. Companion Paper

Arms

Arm NameArm Description
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis

Arm Details

1. Dose Received, mean
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis

Outcomes

TypeDomainSpecific measurement (i.e., tool/definition/specific outcome)PopulationsTimepoints
ContinuousOpiod useLevel change after medical cannabis authorization
  • All Participants
  • Followup
ContinuousOpiod UseTrend change after medical cannabis authorization
  • All Participants
  • Followup
ContinuousOpiod UseOverall absolute effect after medical cannabis authorization
  • All Participants
  • Followup
CategoricalOpioid UsePrescription opioid discontinuation
  • All Participants
  • Followup
CategoricalAdverse Events
  • All Participants
  • Followup

Outcome Details

1. Other Outcomes Reported (primary)
What other primary outcomes, besides: "Pain Response >= 30%", "Pain Severity (Change)", "Pain Interference (Change)", "Function/Disability (Change)".
2. Other AE Outcomes of Importance reported
3. Notes

Results

Categorical


Opioid Use (Prescription opioid discontinuation)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
All Arms (ANOVA)
Followup
Total (N analyzed)
Odds Ratio, Adjusted (adjOR)
Events
95% CI low (adjOR)
Percentage
95% CI high (adjOR)
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
All Arms (ANOVA)

Adverse Events

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Followup
Total (N analyzed)
Mean Difference (MD)
Events
Odds Ratio (OR)
Percentage
95% CI low (OR)
Note
95% CI high (OR)
Odds Ratio, Adjusted (adjOR)
95% CI low (adjOR)
95% CI high (adjOR)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis

Continuous


Opiod use (Level change after medical cannabis authorization)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
vs.
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Followup
Total (N analyzed)
Weekly OME difference
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
vs.
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis

Opiod Use (Trend change after medical cannabis authorization)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
vs.
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Followup
Total (N analyzed)
Weekly OME difference
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
vs.
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis

Opiod Use (Overall absolute effect after medical cannabis authorization)

All Participants
Descriptive StatisticsBetween Arm Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
vs.
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Followup
Total (N analyzed)
Weekly OME difference
95% CI low (MD)
95% CI high (MD)
p value
Within Arm ComparisonsNet Comparisons
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabisControls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis
Chronic opioid users authorized to use medical cannabis
vs.
Controls who did not receive authorization for medical cannabis

Risk of Bias Assessment

1. What kind of study is this?
Choose whether this is an RCT or an Observational Study
2. Randomization Adequate?
ROB2.0
3. Did the study attempt to enroll all (or a random sample of) patients meeting inclusion criteria (inception cohort)?
4. Allocation Concealment Adequate?
Ottawa
5. Groups similar at baseline?
6. Did the study use accurate methods for ascertaining exposures and potential confounders (i.e., age, sex, other medications)?
7. Patients masked?
8. Care provider masked?
9. Outcome assessors masked?
10. Were outcome assessors and/or data analysts blinded to the exposure being studied?
11. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis?
12. Did the study perform appropriate statistical analyses on potential confounders (i.e. age, sex, other medications)?
13. Acceptable levels of overall attrition?
14. Acceptable levels of differential attrition?
15. Did the article report attrition or missing data?
16. Is there important differential loss to followup or overall high loss to followup or missing data?
17. Were outcomes prespecified and defined, and ascertained using accurate methods?
18. Assessment of Bias