4.4 Article

The more you drink, the harder you fall: A systematic review and meta-analysis of how acute alcohol consumption and injury or collision risk increase together

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 110, 期 1-2, 页码 108-116

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.02.011

关键词

Alcohol; Injury; Epidemiology; Risk; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alcohol consumption causes injury in a dose-response manner. The most common mode of sustaining an alcohol-attributable injury is from a single occasion of acute alcohol consumption, but much of the injury literature employs usual consumption habits to assess risk instead. An analysis of the acute dose-response relationship between alcohol and injury is warranted to generate single occasion- and dose-specific relative risks. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to fill this gap. Linear and best-fit first-order model were used to model the data. Usual tests of heterogeneity and publication bias were run. Separate meta-analyses were run for motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle injuries, as well as case-control and case-crossover studies. The risk of injury increases non-linearly with increasing alcohol consumption. For motor vehicle accidents, the odds ratio increases by 1.24 (95% CI: 1.18-1.31) per 10-g in pure alcohol increase to 52.0 (95% CI: 34.50-78.28) at 120g. For non-motor vehicle injury, the OR increases by 1.30(95% CI: 1.26-1.34) to an OR of 24.2 at 140g (95% CI: 16.2-36.2). Case-crossover studies of non-MVA injury result in overall higher risks than case-control studies and the per-drink increase in odds of injury was highest for intentional injury, at 1.38 (95% CI: 1.22-1.55). Efforts to reduce drinking both on an individual level and a population level are important. No level of consumption is safe when driving and less than 2 drinks per occasion should be encouraged to reduce the risk of injury. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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