Most systematic reviews of cannabis use disorder treatments had authors with conflicts of interest, but results were not biased

77.8% (7/9) of systematic reviews had at least one author with a COI. Of 51 authors, 29.4% had COIs. 44% of reviews received funding, 22% were unfunded, and 33% had no funding statement. Despite COIs, there was no significant association between funding source and results (p=0.429) or between COI presence and favorability of results (p=0.56).

Cross-sectional study searching Ovid MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on CUD treatment. Nine eligible reviews with 51 authors were evaluated for disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest using a standardized classification scheme.

With cannabis use disorder treatment becoming more important as legalization expands, understanding whether the evidence base is influenced by conflicts of interest is crucial for clinical decision-making.

While the high prevalence of COIs in cannabis research mirrors patterns seen across biomedical research, the absence of significant bias in this small sample is somewhat reassuring, though stricter disclosure guidelines are still warranted.

Very small sample (only 9 systematic reviews). Limited statistical power to detect bias. Cannot detect subtle forms of bias. COI classification may not capture all potential conflicts. Only examined systematic reviews, not primary studies.