• DOI:10.1089/acm.2013.0190
• Corpus ID: 41682719

Discriminating the effects of Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica: a web survey of medical cannabis users.

@article{Pearce2014DiscriminatingTE,
  title={Discriminating the effects of Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica: a web survey of medical cannabis users.},
  author={Daniel D. Pearce and Katherine Mitsouras and Kristopher J. L. Irizarry},
  journal={Journal of alternative and complementary medicine},
  year={2014},
  volume={20 10},
  pages={
          787-91
        }
}

• D. Pearce, K. Mitsouras, Kristopher J. L. Irizarry
• Published 9 October 2014
• Medicine
• Journal of alternative and complementary medicine

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the opinions of medical cannabis (MC) users on the effects of Cannabis indica vs. those of Cannabis sativa on conditions and symptoms through an online survey.

DESIGN
Survey of 95 non-randomly assigned MC users. A two-sided chi-square test followed by Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparison and Fisher exact test were used to determine correlations. The Cronbach α was used to determine internal consistency.

SETTING
Announcements on 13 MC websites with links to SurveyMonkey.com.

PARTICIPANTS
Self-identified MC users.

INTERVENTION
Web survey.

OUTCOME MEASURES
Species effects were compared regarding health symptoms, conditions, purpose, route, and trust in product label.

RESULTS
Trust in the purity, the route of administration, or the purpose (recreational vs. medicinal) did not differ between the two species. A preference for C. indica was statistically significant for pain management (p=0.001), helping with sedation (p=0.015), and sleep (p<0.001). C. sativa was preferred for euphoria (p<0.001) and enhancing energy (p=0.022). The conditions reaching statistical significance for C. indica preference were: nonmigraine headaches (p=0.042), glaucoma (p=0.036), neuropathy (p=0.024), spasticity (p=0.048), seizures (p=0.031), insomnia (p<0.001), and joint pain (p=0.048). For C. sativa, no conditions reached significance. The MC websites' descriptions of effects that agreed with the survey results are listed. Some conditions had very few respondents. The internal consistency/reliability (Cronbach α) was adequate for the condition scale but not for the symptom survey.

CONCLUSION
In this anonymous Web survey, which had limitations, the two species had different effect associations on symptoms and conditions, possibly because of ingredient differences. Future surveys and subsequent prospective definitive trials are needed to confirm the findings.