An evidence-based systematic assessment of cannabinoids for the management of severe non-cancer pain

Received: 14-Jun-2024, Manuscript No. OAR-24-140997; Accepted: 17-Jul-2024, Pre QC No. OAR-24-140997(PQ); Editor assigned: 17-Jun-2024, Pre QC No. OAR-24-140997(PQ); Reviewed: 05-Jul-2024, QC No. OAR-24-140997(Q); Revised: 12-Jul-2024, Manuscript No. OAR-24-140997(R); Published: 22-Jul-2024

Introduction

Extended qualitative study can provide valuable information on the safety of CbMs for CNCP management and can help inform clinical decision-making. Pain that lasts for at least three months and continues after an injury or sickness has finished its typical healing process is referred to as CNCP. It may result from several circumstances, such as inflammation, trauma, degenerative illnesses, or somato sensory system problems. Nociceptive or neuropathic CNCP is also possible [1].

Taking into account the individual's specific requirements, medical history, and possible side effects, analgesics are frequently utilised to treat severe discomfort and discomfort associated with cancer. It is significant to acquire sequence factors in physical activity, establish multidisciplinary pain treatment, and follow patients [2]. However, there is debate about the appropriateness of opiates, thus it is important to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages. A detailed literature study on a particular disease or syndrome is necessary for an organised assessment of cannabis [3]. The assessment follows present guidelines in order to find and evaluate pertinent publications on a given topic [4].

Assessing the research's relevance and efficacy is essential before enhancing high-quality content. The results, methodology, sample size, patient information, and measurement of outcomes ought to be thoroughly analysed [5]. Any restrictions or ambiguities ought to be mentioned in the succinct findings. Complicated treatment including different types of therapy may be necessary for acute non-cancer pain, dependent on the real cause and specific needs of the person being treated [6].

Treatment for severe non-cancer pain must be holistic, taking into account the requirements and preferences of the individual patient. It might be necessary to use a combination of pharmaceutical and non-pharmacological therapy in range techniques in particular to effectively regulate suffering [7]. Furthermore, the processes can require ongoing review and adjustment. A portion of anxiety is controlled by the endocannabinoid receptor system [8]. The statistics also made obvious that more Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are needed. It also highlighted the possibility of addiction, weariness, and cognitive deterioration as negative effects of cannabis use. It's crucial to keep in that depending on the dosage and individual, side effects may differ in frequency and intensity. It's crucial to keep in that depending on the person and dosage, side effects can vary in frequency and intensity [9].

The fact that synthetic cannabinoids, which can have different pharmacological effects, were used in several of the experiments in the study another important consideration is the properties and safety profiles of natural cannabinoids [10]. It's important to see a doctor before starting any new medication, including cannabis use, and to be cautious of any potential side effects [11]. Indeed, both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major reason that prescription opioids are written in North America. Nonetheless, a significant number of orthopaedic doctors in North America might nonetheless regularly recommend opioids following surgeries, fractures, or worsening degenerative bone and joint disease [12]. While opioids could temporarily relieve pain, it is crucial to remember that they do not treat the underlying cause of the pain and may even make it worse over time owing to an effect known as opioid-induced hyperalgesia [13]. In addition, there are non-opioid drugs, complementary treatments like acupuncture, physical therapy, and other pain management techniques that may be just as helpful as long-term opioid usage in controlling musculoskeletal pain, if not more so [14]. Therefore, before prescribing opioids, healthcare professionals should thoroughly assess each patient's requirements for pain management and take other therapies into account [15]. The entails weighing of advantages and possible drawbacks in opioid and teaching patients about safe pharmaceutical use, handling, and disposal. Opioids may be required to relieve pain in certain circumstances, but they should be used cautiously and in conjunction with other pain management techniques [16].

Research conducted a thorough analysis of research looking to treat chronic pain and other co-occurring diseases [17]. The emphasis will be on randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and observational research. The ability to effectively relieve chronic pain will be the main result of interest. Secondary effects include the ability to treat ailments including sleep difficulties. The study evaluated the efficiency and acceptability and it is important to use care when interpreting data from observational research [18]. CbMs were usually well accepted and safe, and they showed favorable benefits on a variety of symptoms for certain CNCP patients. Research determined the advantages and disadvantages of using cannabis and cannabinoids for treating chronic pain [19]. Based on the body of data, the accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation offers contextualized advice. The overview objective of the goal is to indicate which cannot draw a conclusion on the causality of opioid dose reduction when combined with Medical Cannabis (MC) [20]. The data from the study cannot be trusted to support the use of medicinal cannabis even though it has analgesic qualities that make it a realistic choice to reduce opioid doses. Furthermore, it is yet unclear what dose of MC is best for reducing opioid use. The study determined the summary in endorsing marijuana as well as cannabis-based medications in addition to the maintenance and treatment of CNCP [21].

Research described the outcomes of rigorous evaluations and controlled randomized experiments of a range of well-known drugs [22]. They also present emerging data on additional novel pharmacotherapeutics, such as acetyl-L-carnitine, and low-dose naltrexone. The overview objective of the goal is to evaluate the main quantitative component which uses the impact of legislation on the treatment of opioid use disorder, and opioid overdose among CNCP sufferers [23]. The study discussed the effectiveness of dosage and the absence of data about potential effects is especially concerning [24]. There is an urgent need for consensus guidelines for the design and reporting of research on the decrease in opioid therapy. The overview objective of the goal provided patients with persistent non-cancer pain were referred by an academic general medicine clinic to take part in a program that brought together internists, clinical pharmacists, and psychiatrists [25]. Patients were either undergoing opioid treatment or under consideration for it. The intervention included pain contracts, monthly follow-ups, organized clinical evaluations, medication titration, and psychiatric counselling. As we preferred, there is evidence of intermediate quality supporting the use of cannabis to treat severe non-cancer pain. However, point out that the effect's size is low and the danger of unfavourable outcomes is high.

Materials and Methods

The PRISMA statement was followed while conducting the research.

Data collection and analysis

Only adults were included in all research. The patients represented varied in number from 103 to 750. The participants' ages, on average, varied from 42 years to 56 years. Between 35% and 81% of the patients were female. There were between 6% and 54% of patients in four trials who had never used cannabis.

Evaluation standards for research

Various of contestants:

Patients were included in the study if they had experienced CNCP for at least three months, regardless of age. Cancer pain studies were not included in the research.

Types of interventions:

The study covered research on cannabinoids, or pharmacological cannabinoids, at any dose and administered via any route for the treatment of CNCP. Analyse the system by inhibiting the digestive enzymes which hydrolyse endocannabinoids raise ranges of naturally occurring substances that aren't studied.

Varieties of experiments:

Prospective research that has been conducted throughout time lasting more than 6 months was conducted.

Types of outcome measures:

An overview of the systematic evaluation of the overall risks of damage from cannabinoids, cannabis, and CbMs that would be pertinent to patients receiving them for pain treatment served as the basis for the identification of particular adverse events.

Calculating the impact of a therapy:

To normalize the measure and determine the standard mean differences of the other continual variables, a model based on random effects were utilized to calculate. A random effects model was used to obtain aggregated such as dropout rates owing to unfavourable occurrences. All summary data were given 85% Confidence Intervals (CI). We determined heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. I2>49% in the combined data were deemed to be significantly heterogeneous.

Requirements for a significant therapeutic impact:

In observational studies, there is no consensus on what constitutes a big magnitude of effect size. According to a thorough analysis, the median Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID), as measured in chronic pain trials from the beginning to the conclusion of the research, was 22 mm on a scale of 100 mm (interquartile range, 11–37). Based on the baseline level of pain and other methodological criteria, this number fluctuated greatly. The impact size was considered to be significant if the pain score dropped by at least one point, or 1.0, on a scale from 0 to 9. In RCTs employing CbMs to treat persistent neurological pains, 39% of several people had reduced discomfort by at least 29% during therapy. According to a thorough examination of all chronic pain syndromes, 28% of patients in the CbMs groups had their pain reduced by at least 29% from the beginning of their therapy to the end when more than 49% of patients reported pain alleviation between the baseline and the most recent follow-up, that's at least 29%.

Dealing with missing data:

The study made an effort to retrieve missing means or Standard Deviations (SDs) by getting in touch with the study. When rates of 29% and 49% or more pain alleviation were not recorded or made available upon request.

Subgroup analysis:

For subgroup evaluations of the results in terms of effects, the type and form in syndrome were utilized as divisions, given that a minimum of two studies were accessible. The probable causes of clinical heterogeneity were also investigated using these subgroup analyses.

Sensitivity analysis:

By eliminating papers from responder analysis that used imputed means and SDs, sensitivity analyses were previously developed.

Assessment of publication bias:

To detect funnel plot asymmetry at the significance level p< 0.01, the research intended to apply the Egger intercept test and the Begg rank correlation test.

Results

Search

After reviewing five papers in their entirety, the study excluded them due to lack of pain-related outcomes. Results of a 48- week Indian experiment with 143 patients were reported for both responders and non-responders. An average follow-up of 48 weeks-28 weeks was noted in another Indian experiment including 101 participants. Additionally, 1144 persons using medicinal cannabis for various conditions did not separately publish results for individuals experiencing pain at the 6-month follow-up (Figure 1).

Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram

Included studies

Numerous research developments, including RCTs, cross-sectional studies, qualitative research, and systematic assessments and meta-analyses, may be used in the included studies. Patients from the studies that were included may have different forms of CNCP, such as arthritis, fibromyalgia, back pain, or neuropathic pain. Patients, who are shown in table 1, might also differ in terms of the intensity and duration of their discomfort, DISE-related findings.

Tab. 1. Fundamental features of the research included in the systematic assessment

Types of CbMs

All trials made use of medicinal cannabis that was either smoked or vaporized or taken orally as drops. Five studies reported on doses, with the average THC and CBD concentration and range in three of them being 1.4 g/day.

Effects of cannabinoid in CNCP

In CNCP it may vary depending on several variables, including the type and dosage of cannabis used, patient characteristics, and the specific symptoms being targeted, which are depicted in figure 2 and table 2. Some study suggests that medicinal marijuana could assist persons improve CNCP with their level of exercise, relationships, and overall standard of living. According to comprehensive research that appeared in the International Journal of Pain in 2015, people with persistent discomfort who use medicinal cannabis report having a higher quality of life and experience fewer feelings of depression and anxiety. Furthermore, a 2020 study that has been released in the Journal of Pain Management determined that patients with chronic pain that utilised cannabis for medicinal purposes generally exercised significantly. It has become clearer how medical marijuana affects concentration along with mental agility. Those considering utilising medical cannabis for chronic pain must closely track how their bodies respond to the drug and discuss any potential benefits and risks with their health care physician.

Figure 2: Comparison of effects of cannabinoids in CNCP

Tab. 2. Effects of cannabinoids in CNCP

The degree of tolerance participants had using cannabis for CNCP

Many factors can affect the frequency of cannabis prescriptions for the treatment of chronic pain syndrome (CCNP), depending on the root ailment creating the discomfort. The consumption of cannabis, for example, may become more widespread for the management for cancer-associated discomfort due in part to distinct features of pain associated with the disease and the lack of suitable alternatives. A person's health status, current medications, the degree and length of the discomfort, and other factors may all play a role in the decision regarding the use of cannabis when treating a non-cancerous instance of CNCP. Comparably, factors which include the presence of other symptoms such as diarrhoea and nausea, spasms, difficulty falling asleep, severe discomfort, or starvation accompanied bodyweight loss might need to be brought into factoring when deciding whether to give cannabinoids for CNCP treatments. the signs and symptoms are shown in table 3 and figure 3. The prevalence of cannabis federal and regional legislation on prescriptions for CNCP may also have an impact on medical marijuana, the opinions of medical professionals and patients toward cannabis, and the accessibility of alternative and complementary medicine.

Figure 3: Prevalence of prescription with cannabinoid

Tab. 3. Prevalence of prescription with cannabinoid

The degree of comfort respondents had using cannabis for CNCP

The participant's level of satisfaction with the application of marijuana for CNCP treatment could be influenced by a number of variables, a few of these are depicted in figure 4 and table 4. For example, some people may feel more comfortable using cbd for CNCP if they personally have benefited with cannabis use or if they support the use of marijuana for medical purposes in general. The degree and duration of the pain, the presence of additional symptoms or comorbidities, the patient's medical history and current medications, as well as the local legal and regulatory environment surrounding medical marijuana, are other factors that may impact respondents' comfort level with cannabinoids for CNCP. Additionally, the quality of the evidence supporting the therapeutic application of cannabis as well as any potential risks or unfavourable effects may have an impact on the participants' ease when it comes to prescribing or advising cannabis for CNCP. Generally speaking, the respondents' familiarity regarding cannabis use for CNCP may vary based on their opinions, events, and views, as well as the specifics of the patient's illness and the choices for treatment.

Figure 4: Comparison of respondents’ level of comfort with cannabinoid

Tab. 4. Respondents’ level of comfort with cannabinoid

Analyse CNCP from an individual samples

A pain intensity scale may be used to indicate the usage of the categories slightly, moderately, considerably, and extremely to categories CNCP in a sample of individuals in figure 5 and table 5. By using a pain intensity scale to measure CNCP in a sample of individuals, researchers may be able to gain a better understanding of the prevalence and severity of CNCP in the population as well as potential factors that might contribute to higher levels of pain intensity. A pain intensity scale can also help doctors design customised treatment plans that address each patient's particular level of pain, improving patient outcomes and quality of life.

Figure 5: Comparison of CNCP among a sample of patients

Tab. 5. Determination of CNCP among a sample of patients

Types of chronic pain

Patients with FMS were the sole participants in two investigations. Patient participants in three trials had various forms of CNCP. In one of these three investigations, 7% of the participants had discomfort from non-terminal cancer.

Elimination of medically significant internal illnesses or mental problems

Exclusion criteria were not reported for the two trials. Use of medical cannabis during the previous three months was deemed a requirement for exclusion in two trials. Women who are pregnant or nursing were not included in the two trials. Patients having a history of psychosis and/or drug use were not included in the two investigations.

Effects of intervention

Due to constraints of inconsistency and imprecise, the degree of proof reliability for each result has been reduced by two levels. The standard of the supporting documentation failed to meet as the requirement of a considerable degree of effect size was being met could not be raised. In light of this, all outcomes had extremely low degrees of evidential confidence.

Discussion

Summary of main results

The study discovered that 20% of patients complained of discomfort. Allegation of 49% or more 37%, and a stated 29% decrease in pain. However, the data supporting these conclusions are of extremely poor quality. Any improvement in these areas should be seen as beneficial since the related Indicators considerably add to the misery that persons through CNCP experience generally. At the most recent follow-up, 54% of patients were still taking CbMs, with fewer than 10% stopping owing to ineffectiveness. In contrast to previous pharmacological involvement trials, CbMs in the studies under consideration did not recompense patients and forced them to pay out-of-pocket costs, which may have led to dropouts. It is notable and reassuring to note that 16% of patients who were first treated with opioids stopped using their opioid prescriptions. In general, CbMs were safe and well-tolerated. However, there was no information on major adverse effects in the two trials. No research evaluated abnormal drug use. As a result, data from observational studies should be interpreted with care.

General quality and application of the findings

The study cannot completely rule out the possibility that we overlooked unfavourable research findings due to our search method or because they were not published. The following factors partly restrict the application (external validity) of evidence: The bulk of the individuals in their middle years.

Potential biases in the assessment process

As a result, it's possible that the study overestimated the frequency of unfavourable occurrences. The study has research in which 9% of the individuals had cancer discomfort. All of the outcomes, except two, had substantial levels of heterogeneity, which was likely caused by the diversity of the research populations and study settings.

Coordination with other cohort studies that have undergone a comprehensive evaluation

The thorough assessment of individuals with CNCP pain issues also took observational studies into account. Although the specific study findings for this outcome were not disclosed, the combined likelihood of accomplishing a 29% decrease in suffering was 71% (94% CI 65%, 77%). According to a study of data on recreational cannabis use, our evaluation reveals that medicinal cannabis usage may be linked to gastrointestinal, neurological, mental, and pulmonary effects. In the trials included in this assessment, serious adverse events were typically few, although clinically significant occurrences like disorientation resulting in admission to the emergency room and two pneumonia-related fatalities were documented. The two patients who passed away from medicinal cannabis use were not mentioned by the study's authors. Unfortunately, no research has examined abnormal drug behaviour, including cannabis dependency and cannabis use disorder, as well as diverting cannabis flowers to friends or the underground market.

Conclusions

The precise outcomes and conclusions of the research will determine how the safety of CbMs for CNCP in long-term observational studies is systematically evaluated. 21% of patients reported a 3% pain decrease, while 37% reported a 29% reduction in pain. The results of this evaluation do concur is insufficient evidence from high-quality research to warrant the widespread use of cannabis as a pain reliever. However, we are unaware of any medicine that is routinely recommended for use in treating chronic pain. As a result, suggestions need to be more detailed. The results of this research provide credence to the more precise recommendations made in the other forms of therapy for a patient's chronic pain have failed, CbMs may be used on carefully chosen and wellmonitored individuals. According to recent studies, the use of cannabis to relieve serious discomfort that is not related to malignancy is a complicated and debatable subject. While some studies have shown that some forms of chronic pain may be effectively managed by cannabis, additional study is required to completely appreciate their potential advantages and disadvantages. Future developments could result in the creation of more specialized and successful pain management treatments. For instance, researchers may create synthetic cannabinoids with enhanced safety and effectiveness profiles or they may create more effective and environmentally friendly ways to produce certain cannabinoids. Additionally, there could be more emphasis on a clinical study to comprehend the potential therapeutic advantages of cannabinoids as medical and legal views around cannabis continue to change. This could result in more specialized and scientifically supported methods of managing pain with cannabis. It is important to emphasize that before being broadly embraced in clinical practice, any breakthroughs will need to be thoroughly examined for safety and effectiveness. As a result, people should continue to seek the advice of knowledgeable healthcare professionals and adhere to accepted therapeutic protocols for the management of severe noncancer pain.

References

1. Boyaji S, Merkow J, Elman RN. The role of cannabidiol (CBD) in chronic pain management: an assessment of current evidence. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2020;24:1-6. [Google Scholar][Crossref]
2. Chapman EJ, Edwards Z, Boland JW. Practice review: evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Palliat Med. 2020;34:444-453.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

3. Yang J, Bauer BA, Wahner-Roedler DL. The modified WHO analgesic ladder: is it appropriate for chronic non-cancer pain? J Pain Res. 2020;411-417.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

4. Cooke AC, Knight KR, Miaskowski C. Patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives of co-use of cannabis and opioids for chronic non-cancer pain management in primary care. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;63:23-28.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

5. Bertin C, Delage N, Rolland B. Analgesic opioid use disorders in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A holistic approach for tailored management. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;121:160-174.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

6. Cheatle MD, Falcone M, Dhingra L. Independent association of tobacco use with opioid use disorder in patients of European ancestry with chronic non-cancer pain. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;209:107901.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

7. Eather CE, Gullo MJ, Elphinston RA. Reward drive moderates the effect of depression-related cognitive mechanisms on risk of prescription opioid misuse among patients with chronic non-cancer pain. J Pain. 2023;24:655-666.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

8. Botea MO, Andereggen L, Urman RD, Luedi MM, Romero CS. Cannabinoids for Acute Pain Management: Approaches and Rationale. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2024;1-9.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

9. Chow N, Gallo L, Busse JW. Evidence-based medicine and precision medicine: complementary approaches to clinical decision-making. Precis Clin Med. 2018;1:60-64.

   [Google Scholar][Crossref]

10. You DS, Mardian AS, Darnall BD. A brief screening tool for opioid use disorder: EMPOWER Study Expert Consensus Protocol. Front Med. 2021;8:591201.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

11. Votrubec C, Tran P, Lei A. Cannabinoid therapeutics in orofacial pain management: A systematic review. Aust Dent J. 2022;67:314-327.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

12. Virgen CG, Kelkar N, Tran A. Pharmacological management of cancer pain: novel therapeutics. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;156:113871.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

13. Van Rensburg R, Reuter H. An overview of analgesics-anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and other medications (Part 3). S Afr Fam Pract. 2019; 61:59-62.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

14. Furrer D, Kröger E, Marcotte M. Cannabis against chronic musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review on users and their perceptions. J Cannabis Res. 2021;3:41.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

15. Raymond TJ, Tobin KA, Rogers TS. Nonopioid pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain. Am Fam Physician. 2021;103:561-565.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

16. Wright P, Walsh Z, Margolese S, et al. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the use of plant-based cannabis and cannabinoid-based products in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and co-occurring conditions: protocol for a systematic literature review. BMJ Open. 2020;10

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

17. Grzelak S, Bérubé M, Gagnon MA, et al. Pain Management Strategies After Orthopaedic Trauma: A Mixed-Methods Study with a View to Optimizing Practices. J Pain Res. 2022:385-402.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

18. Wang L, Hong PJ, May C. Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2021;374.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

19. Okusanya BO, Asaolu IO, Ehiri JE. Medical cannabis for the reduction of opioid dosage in the treatment of non-cancer chronic pain: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2020;9:1-8.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

20. Campbell G, Stockings E, Nielsen S. Understanding the evidence for medical cannabis and cannabis-based medicines for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;269:135-144.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

21. D’Souza RS, Langford B, Wilson RE. The state-of-the-art pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2022;23:775-789.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

22. McGinty EE, Tormohlen KN, Barry CL. Protocol: mixed-methods study of how implementation of US state medical cannabis laws affects treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and adverse opioid outcomes. Implement Sci. 2021;16:1-3.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

23. Avery N, McNeilage AG, Stanaway F. Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022;377.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

24. Johal H, Vannabouathong C, Chang Y. Medical cannabis for orthopaedic patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: does evidence support its use? Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2020;12:1759720X20937968.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

25. Rofé KL, Marshall BD, Merlin JS. Nonpharmacologic management of chronic pain in the United States’ Medicare population: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:2361-2369.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

26. Aviram J, Pud D, Gershoni T. Medical cannabis treatment for chronic pain: outcomes and prediction of response. Eur J Pain. 2021;25:359-374.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

27. Giorgi V, Bongiovanni S, Atzeni F. Adding medical cannabis to standard analgesic treatment for fibromyalgia: a prospective observational study. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2020;38:53-59.

    [Google Scholar]

28. Haroutounian S, Ratz Y, Ginosar Y. The effect of medicinal cannabis on pain and quality-of-life outcomes in chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2016;32:1036-1043.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

29. Safakish R, Ko G, Salimpour V. Medical cannabis for the management of pain and quality of life in chronic pain patients: a prospective observational study. Pain Med. 2020;21:3073-3086.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]

30. Sagy I, Bar-Lev Schleider L. Safety and efficacy of medical cannabis in fibromyalgia. J Clin Med. 2019;8:807.

    [Google Scholar][Crossref]