Background <p>Cannabinoid-based medicines and conventional pharmaceutical analgesics often demonstrate similarly modest analgesic effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), yet meta-analyses of these treatment classes frequently reach different interpretive conclusions. We examined whether this divergence was compatible with interpretive asymmetry, including potential reverse spin bias, defined as narrative framing that is more cautious, negative, or dismissive than expected based on reported efficacy results.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of meta-analyses evaluating cannabinoids and pharmaceutical analgesics for pain. Searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, and reference lists were completed through July 2025. Eligible reviews included double-blind RCTs reporting pain-intensity outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2. For each meta-analysis, pooled efficacy estimates, Results-section wording, and conclusion direction were extracted. Reverse spin bias was assessed at the publication level by comparing reported efficacy findings with narrative conclusions.</p> Results <p>Twenty-four cannabinoid meta-analyses, contributing 27 analyzable interventions, and 15 pharmaceutical analgesic meta-analyses, contributing 47 analyzable interventions, were included. Median pooled pain-relief effect sizes were similar in the cannabinoids and pharmaceutical analgesics literatures, with a small estimated between-class difference of approximately 0.02 effect-size units. At the publication level, positive conclusions were less frequent in cannabinoid publications than in pharmaceutical analgesic publications (n = 3/24 [12.5%] vs. n = 11/15 [73.3%]; risk difference -60.8 percentage points, approximate 95% CI -86.8 to -34.8). Potential reverse spin bias was more frequent in cannabinoid publications than in pharmaceutical analgesic publications (n = 19/24 [79.2%] vs. n = 2/15 [13.3%]; risk difference 65.8 percentage points, approximate 95% CI 42.2 to 89.5).</p> Conclusions <p>Cannabinoid and pharmaceutical analgesic meta-analyses showed similar pooled analgesic efficacy but different interpretive framing. Potential reverse spin bias may be one explanation for the more cautious conclusion framing observed in cannabinoid reviews, suggesting that narrative interpretation and other contextual factors may contribute to divergent conclusions in the pain treatment literature.</p>