By Staff Reporter
A major new scientific review led by UCLA Health has cast doubt on the effectiveness of medical cannabis in treating widely reported conditions such as chronic pain, anxiety and insomnia, challenging popular perceptions around its medical benefits.
The review, published on Friday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), analysed more than 2,500 scientific studies published between 2010 and 2025. From these, researchers closely examined over 120 high-quality sources, including clinical trials, meta-analyses and established medical guidelines.
According to the findings, there is limited or inconsistent scientific evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for most conditions for which it is commonly prescribed or self-administered. While cannabis and cannabinoid products—such as CBD—have gained widespread acceptance as alternative treatments, the review suggests that scientific backing has not kept pace with public enthusiasm.
Lead author Dr Michael Hsu of UCLA Health said the findings highlight a significant gap between public expectations and current medical evidence.
“Scientific evidence does not strongly support the use of medical cannabis for most medical conditions people commonly use it for,” Dr Hsu said, adding that the results underscore the need for more rigorous, condition-specific research.
The study comes at a time when medical cannabis use is rapidly expanding globally, driven by changing laws, aggressive marketing and growing public perception that cannabis-based treatments are safe and effective alternatives to conventional medicine.
Researchers caution that while some limited benefits may exist for specific conditions, the overall evidence remains insufficient to justify broad medical use. They also stress the importance of clinicians relying on proven, evidence-based treatments rather than assumptions shaped by popularity or anecdotal claims.
The authors conclude that patients and healthcare providers should approach medical cannabis with caution and advocate for more high-quality clinical research to clearly define where—if at all—it offers meaningful medical benefit.
