2016
DOI: 10.7196/samj.2016.v106i9.11222
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Position statement on cannabis: A step forwards

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Initially, the search strategy identified 2306 studies. Of these, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria, 2,9–33 involving 269,315,171 participants and 20,873 patients with achalasia from 14 countries across five continents. Figure 1 shows a global incidence and prevalence map, and figure summarizes the results of the search strategy.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Initially, the search strategy identified 2306 studies. Of these, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria, 2,9–33 involving 269,315,171 participants and 20,873 patients with achalasia from 14 countries across five continents. Figure 1 shows a global incidence and prevalence map, and figure summarizes the results of the search strategy.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Firstly, the institution has been set up to be inter-sectoral and it is made up of representatives from 21 government departments and 13 experts, not all of whom come to the table with the same mandates or requirements. As the institution itself has noted, 'The broader Central Drug Authority contains many civil servants representing different government departments and reporting to their ministers, each of whom may have different positions on aspects of policy related to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and psychoactive substance use' (Stein, for the eccda, 2016).…”
Section: 4mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
It is remarkable that Dr Scott begins his response [1] to our rebuttal [2] of his earlier editorial [3] by stating that his paper 'tries to avoid covering all the arguments put forward' by us. Indeed, our impression is that he has merely repeated the position in the earlier editorial, that he uses rhetorical devices to distort our views, and that he ignores the key points we have made.

First, Dr Scott repeats his statement that our position statement suffers from confirmatory bias, and fails to address the evidence base on harms and benefits of drugs that we cite.

…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%