Table 2.
Grading the certainty of the evidence of the effects of cannabidiol on pain.
| Certainty assessment | Summary of findings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants (studies) follow-up | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Overall certainty of evidence | Mean difference (95% CI) |
| Pain severity score (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 12 weeks; assessed with: CBPI—PSS; scale from: 0 to 10) | |||||||
| 99 (3 RCTs) | Very serious a | Not serious | Not serious | Serious b | None | ⨁ ◯◯◯ very low | −0.60 [−1.51, 0.31] |
| Pain interference score (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 12 weeks; assessed with: CBPI—PIS; scale from: 0 to 10) | |||||||
| 99 (3 RCTs) | Very serious a | Not serious | Not serious | Serious b | None | ⨁ ◯◯◯ very low | −1.52 [−3.84, 0.80] |
The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. CI, confidence interval; CBPI, canine brief pain inventory; PIS, pain interference score; PSS, pain severity score.
a
There was a high risk of bias from selecting the reported results and carryover effects.
b
There was a relatively small number of samples, limiting the precision of the pooled estimates.