Research study · Pharmaceutical Medicine · 2026
Studies of Cannabinoid-Based Products in ClinicalTrials.gov: A Scoping Review
Verified on PubMed Systematic review or meta-analysis
A 2026 study in Pharmaceutical Medicine tested cannabinoids. This review did not test whether cannabis-based treatments work. This study tells us what kinds of cannabis-based research are being registered, not whether those treatments help anyone.
In plain language
Study overview
This study looked at the list of research projects that have been registered on a public website that tracks medical studies. It counted the cannabis-based treatments being tested, the health problems they aim to address, and how big and how long the studies tend to be.
Findings
This review did not test whether cannabis-based treatments work. It found that most of the registered studies are small early-stage projects run by universities and hospitals, and that the number of such studies has been growing over time.
The deeper readScientific analysis
Background and Objectives: There is increased interest in using cannabinoid-based products for therapeutic purposes. Because of unique regulatory challenges associated with these products, understanding the state of current research is critical to inform future research. The objective of this review was to survey the characteristics of registered studies on ClinicalTrials.gov that describe using cannabinoid-based products as an intervention. Methods: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist and guidance. Eligible studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that used cannabinoid-based products as an intervention included those using approved drugs, compounds (nonapproved drugs/extracts with defined phytocannabinoid content), cannabis (whole cannabis products), and hemp (hemp-derived products and products without defined cannabinoid content). Data were extracted on October 1, 2023. Statistical analyses were descriptive. Results: Of 2428 identified records, 879 interventions from 825 unique studies were eligible for analysis. Studies included drugs (n = 287 [32.7%]), compounds (n = 383 [43.6%]), cannabis (n = 178 [20.3%]), and hemp (n = 31 [3.5%]). The most common MeSH categories were psychological disorders (n = 170 [20.6%]), pathological conditions-signs and symptoms (n = 153 [18.5%]), nervous system diseases (n = 127 [15.4%]), substance use disorders (n = 97 [11.7%]), and healthy volunteers (n = 77 [9.3%]). Of the 825 unique studies, 521 (63.2%) were early phase 1 to phase 2/3, 103 (12.5%) phase 3, and 40 (4.8%) phase 4; 161 (19.5%) were not assigned a phase. Sponsors were academic institutions/hospitals (70.5%), pharmaceutical/commercial entities (26.8%), government (2.5%), and an individual (0.1%). Most studies (54.2%) had fewer than 50 participants. Mean and median enrollment were 104 and 41. Mean and median duration were 837 and 717 days. Submitted studies increased over time. Conclusion: Registered studies using cannabinoid-based interventions were typically phase 2, randomized, and small (<50 participants). The results highlight the diverse nature of clinical studies across disease states and reinforce the need for larger, placebo-controlled studies.
The paper
Citation
Haney M, Cooper ZD, VanLaanen H, Hindocha C, Triemstra JL Studies of Cannabinoid-Based Products in ClinicalTrials.gov: A Scoping Review. Pharmaceutical Medicine (2026). PubMed 41372727 · DOI
Limitations the authors noted
Cross-sectional registry analysis cannot assess efficacy, risk of bias, or effect sizes. Registry data may be incomplete or inconsistently reported; not all ongoing studies are registered. Data extraction performed by a single reviewer with confirmation by others. Categorization may be affected by misclassification and missing keywords. Analysis limited to ClinicalTrials.gov; results may not generalize to other registries.
In practice
Why this matters
This study tells us what kinds of cannabis-based research are being registered, not whether those treatments help anyone. It suggests that most of the work so far is small and early, so the evidence base for any particular use is still thin. Readers should treat it as a map of the research field, and look to larger and more rigorous trials, including ones that compare against placebo, before drawing conclusions about benefit.
Browse related research
Topic: Cannabinoids Topic: Cannabis
Related on CED Clinic
Back to Daily Research and Patient Questions
Reviewed by Dr. Caplan on October 16, 2026.
This page is general education about a published study. It is not medical advice and does not create a doctor-patient relationship. For care specific to you, book a consultation.