The 2020 oral-THC review searched PubMed through March 2020 and included English-language articles. Its findings describe that search scope rather than every study published in every language or database.
How the evidence was assembled
The search produced 363 records, with twenty-six studies meeting the review criteria. One author identified potential studies; study selection involved two authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Extracted information included formulation, dose, participant characteristics and pharmacokinetic measurements.
The authors explicitly identified use of one database and English-language restriction among their limitations. The search cutoff also means the review cannot establish what later research found.
Coverage and validity are different questions
A restricted search does not make an included experiment false. It limits confidence that the evidence inventory is exhaustive. The absent studies might differ in formulation or results, but the review does not identify their direction by assumption. A claim of publication bias needs more than knowledge that a language restriction existed.
A careful use of the review
Describe it as a historical synthesis of available human oral-THC pharmacokinetics under specified criteria. Keep its findings on variability and uneven formulation coverage, while avoiding claims that no other evidence existed. It is not a current product comparison or an independently validated method for predicting one person’s intoxication duration.
Related reading: limits of identifying cannabis sources.
Research cited
Poyatos and colleagues (2020). Oral Administration of Cannabis and Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Preparations: A Systematic Review. DOI: 10.3390/medicina56060309.
Leave a Reply