| Title |
Inhaled medicinal cannabis and the immunocompromised patient
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-014-2429-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosa Ruchlemer, Michal Amit-Kohn, David Raveh, Lumír Hanuš |
| Abstract |
Medicinal cannabis is an invaluable adjunct therapy for pain relief, nausea, anorexia, and mood modification in cancer patients and is available as cookies or cakes, as sublingual drops, as a vaporized mist, or for smoking. However, as with every herb, various microorganisms are carried on its leaves and flowers which when inhaled could expose the user, in particular immunocompromised patients, to the risk of opportunistic lung infections, primarily from inhaled molds. The objective of this study was to identify the safest way of using medicinal cannabis in immunosuppressed patients by finding the optimal method of sterilization with minimal loss of activity of cannabis. We describe the results of culturing the cannabis herb, three methods of sterilization, and the measured loss of a main cannabinoid compound activity. Systematic sterilization of medicinal cannabis can eliminate the risk of fatal opportunistic infections associated with cannabis among patients at risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 15% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 15% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,085,350
of 23,177,498 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#105
of 4,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,237
of 246,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,177,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.