Objective: As the perceived risk of cannabis use continues to decline among youths and access continues to increase, it has become more important to synthesize the rapidly growing literature on the effects of cannabis on neurocognition. Hundreds of studies examining associations between cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning have been published in recent decades. However, results often differ across individual studies, particularly when sample sizes are small. Meta-analytic methods help to make sense of this literature and have been increasingly applied to studies on cannabis use and neurocognition. Methods: A systematic literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted to identify peer-reviewed meta-analyses of neurocognitive or functional neuroimaging data that examined associations between cannabis use and non-acute effects on neurocognitive functioning (n = 8). Results: Current findings suggest that regular healthy cannabis users, regardless of age, display poorer neurocognitive functioning relative to nonusers of small to medium effect sizes across many neurocognitive domains, as well as functional brain alterations when compared to non-users. Adverse effects are not uniform across neurocognitive domains and evidence for adolescent-onset users having poorer neurocognitive outcomes remains equivocal based on these studies. However, less is known about cannabis effects on neurocognition among clinical samples, as findings from specific clinical samples revealed mixed results. Conclusions: Meta-analyses have played an important role in helping to grasp the totality of results from a large body of literature on cannabis effects on neurocognition, yet more research (particularly large-scale longitudinal studies) is needed to identify critical periods or patterns of use that are more likely to result in negative outcomes.
Objective: As the perceived risk of cannabis use continues to decline among youths and access continues to increase, it has become more important to synthesize the rapidly growing literature on the effects of cannabis on neurocognition. Hundreds of studies examining associations between cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning have been published in recent decades. However, results often differ across individual studies, particularly when sample sizes are small. Meta-analytic methods help to make sense of this literature and have been increasingly applied to studies on cannabis use and neurocognition. Methods: A systematic literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted to identify peer-reviewed meta-analyses of neurocognitive or functional neuroimaging data that examined associations between cannabis use and non-acute effects on neurocognitive functioning (n = 8). Results: Current findings suggest that regular healthy cannabis users, regardless of age, display poorer neurocognitive functioning relative to nonusers of small to medium effect sizes across many neurocognitive domains, as well as functional brain alterations when compared to non-users. Adverse effects are not uniform across neurocognitive domains and evidence for adolescent-onset users having poorer neurocognitive outcomes remains equivocal based on these studies. However, less is known about cannabis effects on neurocognition among clinical samples, as findings from specific clinical samples revealed mixed results. Conclusions: Meta-analyses have played an important role in helping to grasp the totality of results from a large body of literature on cannabis effects on neurocognition, yet more research (particularly large-scale longitudinal studies) is needed to identify critical periods or patterns of use that are more likely to result in negative outcomes.
Authors: Harrison G Pope; Amanda J Gruber; James I Hudson; Geoffrey Cohane; Marilyn A Huestis; Deborah Yurgelun-Todd Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: T Kraan; E Velthorst; L Koenders; K Zwaart; H K Ising; D van den Berg; L de Haan; M van der Gaag Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Angela R Laird; P Mickle Fox; Cathy J Price; David C Glahn; Angela M Uecker; Jack L Lancaster; Peter E Turkeltaub; Peter Kochunov; Peter T Fox Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Albert Batalla; Sagnik Bhattacharyya; Murat Yücel; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Jose Alexandre Crippa; Santiago Nogué; Marta Torrens; Jesús Pujol; Magí Farré; Rocio Martin-Santos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jarrod M Ellingson; Jesse D Hinckley; J Megan Ross; Joseph P Schacht; L Cinnamon Bidwell; Angela D Bryan; Christian J Hopfer; Paula Riggs; Kent E Hutchison Journal: Curr Behav Neurosci Rep Date: 2021-11-15
Authors: Christine M Lee; Brian H Calhoun; Devon Alisa Abdallah; Jessica A Blayney; Nicole R Schultz; Meg Brunner; Megan E Patrick Journal: Alcohol Res Date: 2022-04-28
Authors: Valentina Lorenzetti; Michael Takagi; Yvonne van Dalen; Murat Yücel; Nadia Solowij Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 4.157