BrikoX1d ago

Huge study finds no evidence cannabis helps anxiety, depression, or PTSD

https://lemmy.zip/post/61166444

Huge study finds no evidence cannabis helps anxiety, depression, or PTSD - Lemmy.zip

> The largest review of medicinal cannabis to date found it doesn’t effectively treat anxiety, depression, or PTSD—despite millions using it for those reasons. Researchers warn it could even make mental health worse, raising risks like psychosis and addiction while delaying proven treatments. Some limited benefits were seen for conditions like insomnia and autism, but the evidence is weak. The findings are fueling calls for stricter oversight as cannabis use continues to rise. Study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(26)00015-5/fulltext [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(26)00015-5/fulltext] Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319044656.htm [https://archive.is/newest/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319044656.htm] — Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.

Show threadryannathans1d ago

There were six studies included on anxiety with a total participant count of ~350… What a pathetic attempt of a review

Only 123 participants for PTSD and ONE study included

Show threadTar_Alcaran1d ago

This search led to 634 results, of which 16 were relevant reviews where the mental disorder or SUD was the primary indication that cannabinoids were used to treat. Of these, few reviews included all mental disorders and SUDs (n=6), conducted a meta-analysis (n=4), or thoroughly evaluated the quality of evidence (n=2).

The data is shit. That’s not their fault and it’s mentioned on page 1 of the paper.

Show threadryannathans
It is their fault when they literally draw the conclusion cannabis does nothing for these conditions when they don’t have the data required to make that conclusion
Mar 22 at 9:18amWeb
Show threadTar_Alcaran1d ago

when they literally draw the conclusion cannabis does nothing for these conditions

No, they don’t do that.

They say that based on the available data, cannabis is not shown to be effective as an only form of treatment, and recommend more studies be done because the vast majority of the studies that exist are very poor.

The reporting on the paper is not the paper.

Show threadryannathans1d ago

There were no significant effects on outcomes associated with anxiety, anorexia nervosa, psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and opioid use disorder. There were insufficient data to meta-analyse studies of ADHD, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tobacco use disorder.

They claim no significant effects for anxiety and PTSD when they could have said there was insufficient data. It’s misleading. They DO do that.

Show threadCaveman1d ago
No significant effect means no statistically significant effect here. The authors never claim an effect doesn’t exist.
Show threadZacryon1d ago
This is how meta analyses work:
you look at available research, aggregate over it, draw conclusions. It is not unusual that such meta studies even point out that more research is needed.
Show threadRandomgal1d ago
The issue is this is bit a HUGE meta study. The results are being presented disingenuously.
Show threadCaveman1d ago
Yeah, doesn’t get as many clicks as “medium-small” meta study does it.
Show threadryannathans1d ago

Then it needs to say more research needed instead of making the misleading claim there’s no effect

There were no significant effects on outcomes associated with anxiety, anorexia nervosa, psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and opioid use disorder. There were insufficient data to meta-analyse studies of ADHD, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tobacco use disorder.

Show threadCaveman1d ago
No significant effect does not mean no effect, very crucial difference. It means that the effect wasn’t statistically significant, i.e. <5% chance of being random.