Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 9.
Published in final edited form as: J Psychopharmacol. 2021 May 28;35(7):786–803. doi: 10.1177/02698811211021583

Table 3.

Percentage of participants (n = 20) classified as “impaired” based on performance on the DRUID® application and field sobriety tests.

Number (%) 0 mg oral 10 mg oral 25 mg oral 0 mg vaped 5 mg vaped 20 mg vaped

Impaired based on raw data scores
Walk and turna 3 (15%) 6 (30%) 8 (40%) 5 (25%) 10 (50%) 9 (45%)
One leg standa 3 (15%) 7 (35%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) 3 (15%) 8 (40%)
Modified Romberg balancea 4 (20%) 6 (30%) 7 (35%) 6 (30%) 7 (35%) 11 (55%)
DRUIDb 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 10 (50%)* 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 9 (45%)
Impaired based on change-from-baseline scores
Walk and turna 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) 7 (35%) 6 (30%)
One leg standa 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 5 (25%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 4 (20%)
Modified Romberg balancea 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 7 (35%)
DRUIDc 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 9 (45%)* 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 7 (35%)*
*

Significant difference from placebo within that route of administration (Bonferroni-corrected, p < 0.016); Δ = significant difference between low and high dose within that route of administration (Bonferroni-corrected, p < 0.016). McNemar’s tests were used for planned comparisons.

Impairment criteria:

a

⩾2 peak (or peak change-from-baseline) clues observed = “impaired”; <2 peak (or peak change-from-baseline) clues = “not impaired.”

b

⩾57 DRUID® global impairment score = “impaired”; <57 score = “not impaired.”

c

⩾13-point change (from baseline) on DRUID® global impairment score = “impaired”; <13-point change (from baseline) = “not impaired.”