Determining the magnitude and duration of acute Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)-induced driving and cognitive impairment: A systematic and meta-analytic review
View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
McCartney, Danielle
Arkell, Thomas R
Irwin, Christopher
McGregor, Iain S
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2021
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The increasing legal availability of cannabis has important implications for road safety. This systematic review characterised the acute effects of Δ9-THC on driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills, with a particular focus on the duration of Δ9-THC-induced impairment. Eighty publications and 1534 outcomes were reviewed. Several measures of driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills (e.g. lateral control, tracking, divided attention) demonstrated impairment in meta-analyses of “peak” Δ9-THC effects (p’s<0.05). Multiple meta-regression analyses further found that regular cannabis users experianced ...
View more >The increasing legal availability of cannabis has important implications for road safety. This systematic review characterised the acute effects of Δ9-THC on driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills, with a particular focus on the duration of Δ9-THC-induced impairment. Eighty publications and 1534 outcomes were reviewed. Several measures of driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills (e.g. lateral control, tracking, divided attention) demonstrated impairment in meta-analyses of “peak” Δ9-THC effects (p’s<0.05). Multiple meta-regression analyses further found that regular cannabis users experianced less impairment than ‘other’ (mostly occasional) cannabis users (p = 0.003) and that the magnitude of oral (n = 243 effect estimates [EE]) and inhaled (n = 481 EEs) Δ9-THC-induced impairment depended on various factors (dose, post-treatment time interval, the performance domain (skill) assessed) in other cannabis users (p’s<0.05). The latter model predicted that most driving-related cognitive skills would ‘recover’ (Hedges’ g=–0.25) within ∼5-hs (and almost all within ∼7-hs) of inhaling 20 mg of Δ9-THC; oral Δ9-THC-induced impairment may take longer to subside. These results suggest individuals should wait at least 5 -hs following inhaled cannabis use before performing safety-sensitive tasks.
View less >
View more >The increasing legal availability of cannabis has important implications for road safety. This systematic review characterised the acute effects of Δ9-THC on driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills, with a particular focus on the duration of Δ9-THC-induced impairment. Eighty publications and 1534 outcomes were reviewed. Several measures of driving performance and driving-related cognitive skills (e.g. lateral control, tracking, divided attention) demonstrated impairment in meta-analyses of “peak” Δ9-THC effects (p’s<0.05). Multiple meta-regression analyses further found that regular cannabis users experianced less impairment than ‘other’ (mostly occasional) cannabis users (p = 0.003) and that the magnitude of oral (n = 243 effect estimates [EE]) and inhaled (n = 481 EEs) Δ9-THC-induced impairment depended on various factors (dose, post-treatment time interval, the performance domain (skill) assessed) in other cannabis users (p’s<0.05). The latter model predicted that most driving-related cognitive skills would ‘recover’ (Hedges’ g=–0.25) within ∼5-hs (and almost all within ∼7-hs) of inhaling 20 mg of Δ9-THC; oral Δ9-THC-induced impairment may take longer to subside. These results suggest individuals should wait at least 5 -hs following inhaled cannabis use before performing safety-sensitive tasks.
View less >
Journal Title
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Volume
126
Copyright Statement
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
Subject
Biomedical and clinical sciences
Psychology