Clinical Takeaway
Cannabinoids have been studied across a range of pediatric medical conditions, with the current evidence base drawing from over 270 studies including clinical trials and observational reports. The data suggest potential benefits in select conditions, but the overall quality and consistency of evidence remains variable. Clinicians should weigh reported benefits against safety considerations on a case-by-case basis when evaluating cannabinoid use in patients under 18.
#2 Cannabinoids for Medical Purposes in Children: A Living Systematic Review.
Citation: Chhabra Manik et al.. Cannabinoids for Medical Purposes in Children: A Living Systematic Review.. Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992). 2025. PMID: 40437694.
Design: 5 Journal: 0 N: 2 Recency: 2 Pop: 3 Human: 1 Risk: 0
This living systematic review establishes an evidence foundation for cannabinoid use in pediatric populations by systematically synthesizing safety and efficacy data across multiple databases, addressing a critical knowledge gap given the expanding clinical interest in cannabinoids for childhood conditions. The continuous update mechanism ensures clinicians have access to evolving evidence as new trials emerge, enabling more informed decision-making regarding cannabinoid administration in children where regulatory frameworks and clinical guidance remain limited.
Methodological Considerations:
- Small sample — underpowered for subgroup analysis
Abstract: AIM: We developed a living systematic review (LSR) that will continuously map the safety and reported benefit data related to cannabinoid use for medical purposes in children. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. Studies involving at least one child 20% studies) in studies enrolling children were somnolence, diarrhoea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSION: These findings will continue to be updated to inform practice and reveal knowledge gaps for future research.
🧒 This living systematic review represents a necessary effort to consolidate evidence on pediatric cannabinoid use, yet several important limitations merit consideration before applying findings to clinical practice. The heterogeneity of study designs, patient populations, and cannabinoid formulations makes direct comparison difficult, and many included studies likely lack the methodological rigor of randomized controlled trials, particularly regarding long-term safety outcomes in developing brains. Publication bias toward positive findings and the evolving regulatory landscape surrounding cannabis research means that evidence quality varies considerably across therapeutic indications. Clinicians considering cannabinoid therapy in pediatric patients should focus on conditions with the strongest evidence base (such as treatment-resistant epilepsy), maintain realistic expectations about effect sizes, and engage in shared decision-making that acknowledges both potential benefits and the genuine gaps in our understanding of neurodevelopmental safety in children and adolescents.