Talk:Medical cannabis

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical cannabis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 180 days

Canasol was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 July 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Medical cannabis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Cannabis Top‑importance

	Cannabis portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Epilepsy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EpilepsyWikipedia:WikiProject EpilepsyTemplate:WikiProject EpilepsyEpilepsy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Dan Conifer (11 July 2016). "Pauline Hanson: Text slabs from One Nation party policies lifted from internet, including Wikipedia". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 11 July 2016.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Cannabis' "420 Collaboration" in 2020.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[tetrahydrocannabinol#Marinol|dronabinol]] The anchor (#Marinol) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Tetrahydrocannabinol#Marinol|Marinol]] The anchor (#Marinol) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education assignment: Science Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Devonwinquist (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Yellowsunshine14.

— Assignment last updated by Amnot Areso (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal cannabis research

The edit using Q1 open access paper published in the journal Pharmaceutics journal was removed stating that it is unreliable predatory source. Link: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/16/8/1081

I just wonder how a well reputed Q1 journal be labelled as a predatory source? PriyadharshaniK (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:MDPI isn't it? Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The academic journals are categorised to 4 and Q1 include the top 25% of journals. The journal Pharmaceutics belongs to this category.

Also, the citation is from a systematic review. When we consider hierarchy of evidence, systematic reviews lies in the top part. They are well designed academic studies.

So, a systematic review published in a Q1 journal undergoes a critical review process, initially from a group of academic researchers, then from the journal editor and reviewers from the journal who are well reputed researchers in the related subject. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refer to this: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19700188360&tip=sid&clean=0

Pharmaceutics was Q2 in 11 years ago. Moreover, kindly read the description given in wikipedia it self. According to wikipedia, it is only 5% (or can be consider as 10%) of MDPI. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The journal, Pharmaceutics, is published by MDPI - which is suspected of predatory practices - and is not indexed by Medline, making it an unreliable source; see WP:MEDRS under 'Predatory journals'. Zefr (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly find it's indexing in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and embase. Both PubMed and Medline are from National Library of Medicine.

As I have motioned earlier, the most reliable source for determining whether a journal is predatory or not is SJR which says Pharmaceutics is a Q1 journal from 2014. It's not predatory simply because publisher is MDPI. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too weak a source for the claims; questionable publisher and not MEDLINE. Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being on MEDLINE doesn't necessarily mean the journal is predatory. Simply, that is the reason for a systematic review carry their searches in at least five different data bases and more the better. It is not mandatory for a journal to be indexed in MEDLINE. On the other hand it's journal decision as well to apply for MEDLINE. Moreover, when it's published in PubMed, it is indexed. Simply in this case, anyone can argue if a PhD thesis is not published in MEDLINE, it is predatory.
How can a journal be labelled as predatory simply by not indexed in MEDLINE, when the cite used for labelling, i.e. SJR says it is Q1. The argument should be based on facts, not be bias. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think it's predatory. But it's too weak. In an area with ample good sources, there's no need to use such weak ones. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. But could you please clarify the followings?
What do you mean by "too weak"?

What is your source for this (too weak)?

What are your good sources?

Could you please cite those sources?

PriyadharshaniK (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given I did not get an answer for my question for several days, I would like to requesting your attention to "Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL"

This is recommended by the academic authors by this page.

The article that I cited is available in PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39204426/.

Just before editing the page again, I am checking any further objections for the citation, or whether you have any favours for particular publication to cite the same (wound healing properties by medical cannabis). PriyadharshaniK (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat: questionable publisher and not MEDLINE. Why use poor sources in a field where there are good ones? (also see WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT) Bon courage (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, kindly answer these questions in relation to finding good research evidence for medical cannabis.
What do you mean by "too weak"?

What is your source for this (too weak)?

What are your good sources?

Could you please cite those sources?

PriyadharshaniK (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answered why it's too weak. The article cites plenty of 'good sources' - check them out. Alternatively search for other good sources (WP:MEDRS in reputable MEDLINE-indexed journals e.g.) Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is appearing on medline search. Kindly see this link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39204426/. Now, do you have any objections? PriyadharshaniK (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is that non-MEDLINE, it is also WP:MDPI. Double bad minus. Bon courage (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the MDPI source. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, since you are fixed minded, I added a screen shot of the medline search which I accessed through my library. I invite you to search independently in medline. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need a decent library, or some competence in searching? Here is the NLM record[1] or you can check the journal's own site. In any event it's WP:MDPI also. Bon courage (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note this is not my own library. Your reply is not being valid. Search for the article, not for the journal. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutics shows in the NLM catalog that the journal is not indexed on MEDLINE. It is a weak, untrustworthy source by a publisher - MDPI - suspected of predatory publishing. See the MEDRS guideline. Zefr (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please search 'medline' with either key terms or article title before commenting here. Are you against even when it can be found in medline? PriyadharshaniK (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing the search database PubMed and the report shown here with the NLM catalog listing, which states "Current Indexing Status: Not currently indexed for MEDLINE." Zefr (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for searching PubMed.

I am not confused as shown in the previous screen shot. I accessed Medline via university website.

I invite you to search medline and post here; either the search result or the link of "THE ARTICLE". Not the search results of the "journal". PriyadharshaniK (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you find it difficult to understand about different search engines, here is the search results for the phrase "Cannabinoids in Integumentary Wound Care" in different search engines which search the database: medline.

medline via Web of Science: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/summary/a743f9f6-cf59-4942-b149-ef8812db6c4f-0107f76d01/relevance/1
medline via EBSCOhost: https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/resultsadvanced?vid=2&sid=12682543-5672-46bf-8a08-8de36cacc53b%40redis&bquery=Cannabinoids+in+Integumentary+Wound+Care&bdata=JmRiPWNtZWRtJnR5cGU9MSZzZWFyY2hNb2RlPVN0YW5kYXJk
medline via PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39204426/

Kindly post your results as you repeatedly claiming this article is not indexed in medline. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are landing pages which require accounts. You can check the NLM iself with this link.[2] No result. You will need to clear the MEDLINE filter to see any result. Bon courage (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I met the university librarian to clarify what you are talking about and I typed her answer as the reply to @Zefr's comment on my talk page. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]