"Recredicinal" Marijuana

Marijuana and Glaucoma: A Social Media Content Analysis

PURPOSE

This study analyzes the content quality and characteristics of the most popular and highly ranked search results on the internet related to glaucoma and medical cannabis (MC).

DESIGN

Internet-based, cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

METHODS

Google and 2 social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube) were used to identify online information most accessible to patients. Search criteria included "glaucoma" AND "marijuana" or "cannabinoid" or "CBD." The top 20 Google search and YouTube results for each search term and the posts from the top 9 patient-based glaucoma Facebook groups were aggregated and analyzed using the search criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The quality of the content was graded by 2 independent graders using a previously validated Sandvik score and previously reported risk score. The differing values were resolved by a final grader. Additional analysis included whether the source was professional (by physician or medical organization) or shared an opinion on MC (pro, mixed, or against) use in glaucoma.

RESULTS

This search resulted in an aggregate of 51 websites on Google, 126 posts from Facebook groups, and 37 videos on YouTube. The mean (± standard deviation) Sandvik score and risk score were 11.0 (±2.23), 10.2 (±1.12), 10.6 (±1.89) and 0.27 (±0.49), 0.46 (±0.62), 0.97 (±0.90) for Google, Facebook, and YouTube, respectively. Analysis of variance showed statistically significant differences in Sandvik (P = 0.01) and risk (P < 0.0001) scores across the 3 platforms. A significant portion of online material was pro-MC use in the setting of glaucoma (24% of Google, 59% of YouTube, and 21% of Facebook results). Professional content had a significantly higher content quality score and a lower risk score, and was less likely to recommend MC use in glaucoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite American Academy of Ophthalmology, Canadian Ophthalmological Society, and American Glaucoma Society statements against MC use in patients with glaucoma, a significant portion of online material recommends its use. With the wide variation in quality and content of online information, it is important for physicians to be aware of the different platforms and opinions that are readily available to patients.

Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Although cannabis and cannabinoids are widely used with therapeutic purposes, their claimed efficacy is highly controversial. For this reason, medical cannabis use is a broad field of research that is rapidly expanding. Our objectives are to identify, characterize, appraise, and organize the current available evidence surrounding therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, using evidence maps.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published from their inception up to December 2017. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We assessed methodological quality of the included SRs using the AMSTAR tool. To illustrate the extent of use of medical cannabis, we organized the results according to identified PICO questions using bubble plots corresponding to different clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 44 SRs published between 2001 and 2017 were included in this evidence mapping with data from 158 individual studies. We extracted 96 PICO questions in the following medical conditions: multiple sclerosis, movement disorders (e.g. Tourette Syndrome, Parkinson Disease), psychiatry conditions, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, acute and chronic pain, cancer, neuropathic pain, symptoms related to cancer (e.g. emesis and anorexia related with chemotherapy), rheumatic disorders, HIV-related symptoms, glaucoma, and COPD. The evidence about these conditions is heterogeneous regarding the conclusions and the quality of the individual primary studies. The quality of the SRs was moderate to high according to AMSTAR scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on medical uses of cannabis is broad. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions were weak in most of the assessed comparisons. Evidence mapping methodology is useful to perform an overview of available research, since it is possible to systematically describe the extent and distribution of evidence, and to organize scattered data.