Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

FIGURE 1 Study flowchart

Published bySri Rachman Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "FIGURE 1 Study flowchart"— Presentation transcript:

1 FIGURE 1 Study flowchart
FIGURE 1 Study flowchart. The study utilized a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 crossover design. Visits were ≥1 ... FIGURE 1 Study flowchart. The study utilized a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 crossover design. Visits were ≥1 wk apart to ensure complete THC clearance. IG, intragastric; random, random assignment; THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol; v, visit. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

2 FIGURE 2 Outline of 1 test session
FIGURE 2 Outline of 1 test session. In each test session, participants were presented with 20 consecutive blocks of ... FIGURE 2 Outline of 1 test session. In each test session, participants were presented with 20 consecutive blocks of high-calorie, low-calorie, and neutral images starting 60 min after oral THC or placebo administration, in counterbalanced, pseudo-randomized order. Fifteen minutes after the food image paradigm, the effect on food intake was tested using either an ad libitum oral intake or intragastric infusion of chocolate milkshake at a constant rate until comfortable satiation. At set time points, ratings of appetite-related sensations were collected using VASs, as were plasma samples for metabolic hormone measurements. THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol; VAS, visual analog scale. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

3 FIGURE 3 Effect of THC compared with placebo on liking and wanting ratings of high- and low-calorie food images. (A) ... FIGURE 3 Effect of THC compared with placebo on liking and wanting ratings of high- and low-calorie food images. (A) Liking (THC: 79.0; IQR: 72.0, 89.0; placebo: 68.0; IQR: 56.0, 81.0) and (B) wanting (THC: 78.9; IQR: 67.8, 90.0; placebo: 73.6; IQR: 61.2, 86.1) ratings of high-calorie food images. (C) Liking (THC: 76.5; IQR: 67.5, 87.0; placebo: 69.0; IQR: 58.0, 79.5) and (D) wanting (THC: 65.0; IQR: 50.7, 79.3; placebo: 64.0; IQR: 51.2, 76.9) ratings of low-calorie food images. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with a cumulative logit link function. β estimates with 95% CIs are plotted per time point (estimate is significant if the CI does not include zero). THC: n = 17, placebo: n = 17. *,**Significance of the main effect of drug over all time points: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

4 FIGURE 4 Effect of THC compared with placebo on milkshake consumption
FIGURE 4 Effect of THC compared with placebo on milkshake consumption. (A) Ad libitum milkshake consumption during the ... FIGURE 4 Effect of THC compared with placebo on milkshake consumption. (A) Ad libitum milkshake consumption during the oral intake sessions (THC:  ± 46.46 g, n = 17; placebo:  ± 37.54 g, n = 17). (B) Ad libitum milkshake consumption during the intragastric infusion sessions (THC:  ± 1.13, n = 13; placebo:  ± 1.13, n = 12). Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. ***P <  THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

5 FIGURE 5 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in appetite-related sensations. (A) Prospective food ... FIGURE 5 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in appetite-related sensations. (A) Prospective food consumption ratings (THC: 18.10; IQR: 3.50, 32.71; placebo: 9.65; IQR: −1.98, 21.29). (B) Nausea ratings (THC: 4.44; IQR: −3.70, 12.59; placebo: 2.86; IQR: −3.63, 9.35). Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with a cumulative logit link function. β estimates with 95% CIs are plotted per time point (estimate is significant if the CI does not include zero). THC: n = 17, placebo: n = 17. ***Significance of the main effect of drug over all time points: ***P <  For illustrative purposes, only those appetite-related sensations with significant effects of interest are displayed. THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

6 FIGURE 6 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in subjective changes in perception. (A) Feeling high (THC: ... FIGURE 6 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in subjective changes in perception. (A) Feeling high (THC: 9.29; IQR: −4.82, 23.40; placebo: −0.91; IQR: −10.53, 8.54). (B) Anxiety (THC: −2.61; IQR: −8.50, 3.23; placebo: 0.00; IQR: −3.23, 3.23). (C) Dizziness (THC: 7.65; IQR: −7.65, 22.96; placebo: 0.52; IQR: −5.23, 6.28). (D) Sadness (THC: −1.82; IQR: −5.83, 2.20; placebo: 0.77; IQR: −3.47, 5.02). (E) Headache (THC: 4.16; IQR: −2.80, 11.12; placebo: 3.51; 95% CI: −4.89, 11.90). (F) Dry mouth (THC: 5.42; IQR: −11.30, 22.10; placebo: −0.67; IQR: −14.12, 12.78). (G) Reality (THC: 4.53; IQR: −4.53, 13.65; placebo: −2.45; IQR: −8.95, 4.04). (H) Confusion (THC: 3.60; 95% CI: −7.32, 14.53; placebo: 1.65; IQR: −2.16, 5.45). (I) Sleepiness (THC: 10.12; IQR: −3.87, 24.11; placebo: 3.24; IQR: −8.14, 14.61). Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with a cumulative logit link function. β estimates with 95% CIs are plotted per time point (estimate is significant if the CI does not include zero). THC: n = 17, placebo: n = 17. Asterisks on curly brackets indicate significance of the main effect of drug over all time points; asterisks on separate time points indicate significant post hoc tests (assessing the difference between THC and placebo): *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P <  For illustrative purposes, only those sensations with significant effects of interest are displayed. THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

7 FIGURE 6 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in subjective changes in perception. (A) Feeling high (THC: ... FIGURE 6 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in subjective changes in perception. (A) Feeling high (THC: 9.29; IQR: −4.82, 23.40; placebo: −0.91; IQR: −10.53, 8.54). (B) Anxiety (THC: −2.61; IQR: −8.50, 3.23; placebo: 0.00; IQR: −3.23, 3.23). (C) Dizziness (THC: 7.65; IQR: −7.65, 22.96; placebo: 0.52; IQR: −5.23, 6.28). (D) Sadness (THC: −1.82; IQR: −5.83, 2.20; placebo: 0.77; IQR: −3.47, 5.02). (E) Headache (THC: 4.16; IQR: −2.80, 11.12; placebo: 3.51; 95% CI: −4.89, 11.90). (F) Dry mouth (THC: 5.42; IQR: −11.30, 22.10; placebo: −0.67; IQR: −14.12, 12.78). (G) Reality (THC: 4.53; IQR: −4.53, 13.65; placebo: −2.45; IQR: −8.95, 4.04). (H) Confusion (THC: 3.60; 95% CI: −7.32, 14.53; placebo: 1.65; IQR: −2.16, 5.45). (I) Sleepiness (THC: 10.12; IQR: −3.87, 24.11; placebo: 3.24; IQR: −8.14, 14.61). Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with a cumulative logit link function. β estimates with 95% CIs are plotted per time point (estimate is significant if the CI does not include zero). THC: n = 17, placebo: n = 17. Asterisks on curly brackets indicate significance of the main effect of drug over all time points; asterisks on separate time points indicate significant post hoc tests (assessing the difference between THC and placebo): *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P <  For illustrative purposes, only those sensations with significant effects of interest are displayed. THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

8 FIGURE 7 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in metabolic hormone concentrations before food intake. (A) Δ ... FIGURE 7 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in metabolic hormone concentrations before food intake. (A) Δ Octanoylated ghrelin (THC: ng/mL; IQR: 15.37, ng/mL; placebo: ng/mL; IQR: 17.03, ng/mL). (B) Δ motilin (THC: ng/mL; IQR: 75.56, ng/mL; placebo: ng/mL; IQR: 65.80, ng/mL). Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with a cumulative logit link function. β estimates with 95% CIs are plotted per time point (estimate is significant if the CI does not include zero). THC: n = 17, placebo: n = 17. *,**Significance of the main effect of drug over all time points: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. For illustrative purposes, only those sensations with significant effects of interest are displayed. THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

9 FIGURE 8 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in metabolic hormones after milkshake intake. (A) GLP-1 ... FIGURE 8 Effect of THC compared with placebo on changes in metabolic hormones after milkshake intake. (A) GLP-1 concentrations after ad libitum oral intake (THC: pg/mL; IQR: 0.51, pg/mL, n = 17; placebo: pg/mL; IQR: 0.73, pg/mL, n = 17). (B) GLP-1 concentrations after ad libitum intragastric infusion (THC: pg/mL; IQR: −0.22, pg/mL, n = 13; placebo: pg/mL; IQR: −3.64, pg/mL, n = 12). Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with a cumulative logit link function, controlling for ingested milkshake volume. β estimates with 95% CIs are plotted per time point (estimate is significant if the CI does not include zero). *,**Significance of the main effect of drug over all time points: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. For illustrative purposes, only those hormones with significant effects of interest are displayed. GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide 1; THC, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Copyright © American Society for Nutrition 2019.This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( Am J Clin Nutr, Volume 109, Issue 4, 04 April 2019, Pages 1051–1063, The content of this slide may be subject to copyright: please see the slide notes for details.

Download ppt "FIGURE 1 Study flowchart"

Similar presentations

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © 2019 European Society of Cardiology and British Pharmacological.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: © 2019 European Society of Cardiology and British Pharmacological.
Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.
FIGURE 1 Distribution of total body iron (calculated from serum ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor ... FIGURE 1 Distribution of total body iron.

FIGURE 1 Distribution of total body iron (calculated from serum ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor ... FIGURE 1 Distribution of total body iron.
Figure 1 Data-selection process

Figure 1 Data-selection process
Figure 1 Flow diagram detailing the systematic review process.

Figure 1 Flow diagram detailing the systematic review process.
Fig. 1. Axial, coronal, and sagittal views of post hoc results (mean gFA) demonstrating significant differences ... Fig. 1. Axial, coronal, and sagittal.

Fig. 1. Axial, coronal, and sagittal views of post hoc results (mean gFA) demonstrating significant differences ... Fig. 1. Axial, coronal, and sagittal.
Figure 1 Schematic representation of the experimental design.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the experimental design.
Figure 1 Number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in mainland China, 2017 (total 753 142). Data from China ... Figure 1 Number of percutaneous.

Figure 1 Number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in mainland China, 2017 (total 753 142). Data from China ... Figure 1 Number of percutaneous.
FIGURE 1 Percentage of patients with sarcopenia or low SMD across the spectrum of total adiposity (N = 3262). SMD, ... FIGURE 1 Percentage of patients.

FIGURE 1 Percentage of patients with sarcopenia or low SMD across the spectrum of total adiposity (N = 3262). SMD, ... FIGURE 1 Percentage of patients.
FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow diagram of studies in systematic review

FIGURE 1 PRISMA flow diagram of studies in systematic review
FIGURE 1 Patient enrolment flowchart. SBS, short bowel syndrome.

FIGURE 1 Patient enrolment flowchart. SBS, short bowel syndrome.
FIGURE 1 Flowchart of the study population.

FIGURE 1 Flowchart of the study population.
FIGURE 3 Incidence of anemia by WDDS category at baseline and endpoint

FIGURE 3 Incidence of anemia by WDDS category at baseline and endpoint
Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.

Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies to the content of this slide: Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the.
Figure 1 Mean (±SE) egg investment in female zebra finches shortly after a second injection with either tetanus toxoid ... Figure 1 Mean (±SE) egg investment.

Figure 1 Mean (±SE) egg investment in female zebra finches shortly after a second injection with either tetanus toxoid ... Figure 1 Mean (±SE) egg investment.
Figure 1 The Kaplan–Meier curves of time to death post first hospitalization. hosp, hospitalization. Unless provided in the caption above, the following.

Figure 1 The Kaplan–Meier curves of time to death post first hospitalization. hosp, hospitalization. Unless provided in the caption above, the following.
AHA: American Heart Association; ALT: ...

AHA: American Heart Association; ALT: ...
Figure 1. Serum ceftazidime concentrations following intravenous administration. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies.

Figure 1. Serum ceftazidime concentrations following intravenous administration. Unless provided in the caption above, the following copyright applies.
Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating the correlation between the yearly absolute risk difference for both MACE and major ... Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating.

Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating the correlation between the yearly absolute risk difference for both MACE and major ... Figure 1 A dot plot illustrating.
Source: Figure created by the author based on data ...

Source: Figure created by the author based on data ...

Similar presentations

Ads by Google