Table 6. Quality of the Evidence (GRADE [45]) for THC/CBD and THC interventions.
| THC/CBD Interventions compared to Placebo for Neuropathic pain | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | No of Participants (studies) Follow up | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects | |
| Risk with Placebo | Risk difference with THC/CBD (95% CI) | ||||
| Change in pain intensity from baseline Scale from: 0 to 100. |
522 (5studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE1 due to risk of bias |
The mean change in pain intensity from baseline in the intervention groups was -6.624 lower (-9.154 to -4.094 lower) | ||
| Responders with 30% reduction in pain intensity | 359 (2studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1,2 due to risk of bias,i mprecision |
RR 1.756 (1.161 to 2.656) | 157 per 1000 | 119 more per 1000 (from 25 more to 260 more) |
| Change in pain disability index Scale from: 0 to 70. |
219 (2studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1,2 due to risk of bias,i mprecision |
The mean change in pain disability index in the intervention groups was 3.646 lower (7.380 lower to 0.087 higher) | ||
| McGill pain questionnaire VAS pain Scale from: 0 to 100. |
71 (2studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW1,2 due to risk of bias,i mprecision |
The mean McGill pain questionnaire VAS pain in the intervention groups was 1.005 higher (19.137 lower to 21.147 higher) | ||
Abbreviations: CBD, cannabidiol; CI, confidence interval; GRADE, grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation; RR, Risk ratio; THC, tetrahydrocannabinol; VAS, visual analog scale.