"Although we defined high quality studies as those that scored full marks on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, many of these high and medium quality studies probably did not control for all possible confounders. Although we restricted positive cannabis results to drivers that showed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in the absence of other drugs or alcohol, other potentially important confounders were probably not controlled for. These hidden confounders, as well as the differing study designs used, might have affected the results of the individual studies and hence the estimates of the pooled odds ratios." M. Asbridge, J. Hayden, J. Cartwright (2012) Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis. BMJ 2012;344:e536 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e536
Hi Dr. Aldallal,
Thank you for the links. I have seen these articles prior by NCBI/NIH and while the MEEQ scale is most often referred to in the United States, Australian-based MJ expectancy measures use the CEQ scale along with a SDS-C scale and GHQ-28 scale. While MEEQ discriminates between users and non-users, the limited research on MJ in the US due to MJ's current drug classification laws has resulted in my searching for MJ research/information from international sources. Also, there are scales that don't seem to warrant as much attention as others, namely the ACEQ as it is based on the AEQ, replacing the word 'drinking' and 'drinking alcohol' with 'cannabis' and 'smoking cannabis' which I personally feel is a misguided attempt in understanding MJ and the reasons for its use.
Thank you,
Terri
PS: I applaud University of Kufa's directed attention regarding the education of females with The Faculty of Education for Girls.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Applied Statistics
- Survey Design
- Questionnaire