4.6 Article

Risk of injury after alcohol consumption from case-crossover studies in five countries from the Americas

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 108, 期 1, 页码 97-103

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04018.x

关键词

Alcohol; case; crossover; emergency department; epidemiology; injury; Latin America

资金

  1. Pan American Health Organization
  2. Generalitat Valenciana, Spain
  3. US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [RO1 2 AA013750-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims This study aimed to: (i) provide relative risk (RR) estimates between acute alcohol use and injuries from emergency departments (EDs) in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Nicaragua and Panama, and (ii) test whether the RR differs if two control periods for the estimates were used. Design Casecrossover methodology was used to obtain estimates of the RR of having an injury within 6 hours after drinking alcohol, using a pair-matching design with control periods of the same time of day on the day prior to injury, and the same time of day and day of week during the week prior to injury. Setting EDs. Participants A total of 2503 injured patients from EDs were interviewed between 2010 and 2011, with a response rate of 92.6%. Measurements Number of drinks consumed within 6 hours prior to the injury and in the two control periods. Findings The RR of injury after drinking alcohol was 4.38 [95% confidence interval (CI):?3.295.84] using the prior week as the control period, and 5.35 (CI:?3.508.17) using the prior day as a control period. The RR was 5.08 (CI: 4.156.23) in multiple matching. Those drinking one to two drinks had a RR of 4.85 (CI: 3.127.54); those drinking three to five drinks an RR of 5.00 (CI: 3.477.18); those drinking six to 15 drinks an RR of 4.54 (CI: 3.366.14); and those drinking 16 or more drinks an RR of 10.42 (CI: 4.3824.79). Conclusions As in other countries, drinking alcohol is an important trigger for an injury in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Nicaragua and Panama.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据