”The findings are based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted worldwide over a 45 year period (1980-2025).”

This review seems dubious considering the huge gap in motivations and scientific rigor between 1980 and 2025.

▲

varispeed a day ago | parent [-]

That's classic with most cannabis studies. They sound like they started with a conclusion and then worked their way back fitting the data.

	▲	cluckindan 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It would be easy, too. Find all studies on the subject, find correlations between some parameters and the results you want/don’t want, add those parameters in your inclusion/exclusion criteria. Who even replicates review articles?