Skip to main content

Editor’s note to: A cannabis oracle? Delphi method not a substitute for randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids as therapeutics

The Original Article was published on 02 July 2021

The use of medical cannabis (including individual cannabinoids) to treat chronic pain is increasing globally, although such use is not approved by any national regulatory authority such as the US Food and Drug Administration and is not supported by replicated, high-quality controlled clinical trials. The absence of data generated by the standard drug development process leaves clinicians with a substantial knowledge gap regarding appropriate dosing regimens. The article by Bhaskar et al. (2021) attempts to fill this gap by presenting consensus recommendations from an international group of 20 clinicians with extensive experience in recommending medical cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain. The accompanying invited commentary by Hill and Abrams (2021) puts these recommendations into the broader context of the current evidence and lack of evidence regarding medical cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain. Drs. Hill and Abrams are recognized experts in the use of medical cannabis to treat chronic pain. Their commentary and disclosure of competing interests were reviewed and approved by me as Editor-in-Chief; the commentary did not receive external peer review.

References

  1. Bhaskar A, Bell A, Boivin M, et al. Consensus recommendations on dosing and administration of medical cannabis to treat chronic pain: results of a modified Delphi process. J Cannabis Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-021-00073-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hill, Adams. A cannabis oracle? Delphi method not a substitute for randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids as therapeutics. J Cannabis Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-021-00074-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Gorelick.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gorelick, D.A. Editor’s note to: A cannabis oracle? Delphi method not a substitute for randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids as therapeutics. J Cannabis Res 3, 24 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-021-00086-w

Download citation