3 ms·
It doesn't say that at all. >The effect estimates for history of MI were similar across methods of consumption, including among people using other forms of can
by LegitShady 5y ago
It doesn't say that at all.
>The effect estimates for history of MI were similar across methods of consumption, including among people using other forms of cannabis, including edibles, as a primary method of consumption. This finding is consistent with a case study reporting an acute MI triggered after consumption of a lollipop containing a large dose of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.36 The Canadian government recently legalized cannabis edibles;2 however, the risks associated with edibles are poorly understood and are of concern to Canadian physicians.37 Edibles are often perceived as a safer alternative for cannabis consumption, but recent evidence suggests that edible cannabis is attributed to a larger proportion of cannabis-related emergency department visits for cardiovascular symptoms compared with inhaled cannabis
- oxymoran 5y ago“Although a similarly elevated odds of history of MI was observed across methods of recent cannabis consumption, only smoking as a primary method achieved statistical significance.“
- this_user 5y agoThat is honestly a pretty confusing sentence in need of clarification. My read would be that statistical significance was not achieved due to the small sample size of users who are primarily using other methods of consumption than smoking.
- galaxyLogic 5y agoIf there isn't statistical significance there isn't statistical significance. It does not matter what caused the lack of it. Without statistical significance there is "no evidence".