ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2021
The effect of alcohol strength on alcohol consumption: findings from a randomised controlled cross-over pilot trial.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Energy labelling of alcoholic drinks: An important or inconsequential obesity policy?Obesity science & practice · 2023Review
- Non-alcoholic beer in the European Union and UK: Availability and apparent consumption.Drug and alcohol review · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReducing the alcohol content of drinks has the potential to reduce alcohol consumption. The aims of this study are to (1) test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effect of alcohol strength on alcohol consumption within licensed premises in the United Kingdom (UK), and to (2) provide data to estimate key parameters for a RCT.
methodsThis study is a double-blind randomised controlled cross-over pilot trial based within four licensed premises in the UK. Participants (n = 36) purchased and consumed ad libitum a 3.5% lager and a 4.8% lager during two separate study sessions. Descriptive statistics reported the efficacy and efficiency of the study processes, and the rates of licensed premises recruitment, and participant recruitment and attrition. Mean and the 95% confidence interval (CI) compared alcohol consumption between conditions. The mean, standard deviation (SD) and CI of UK units of alcohol consumed were used to calculate a sample size for a RCT. Responses to participant questionnaires and duration of participation in study sessions between conditions were analysed.
resultsComponents of the study protocol were effective and efficient. The venue recruitment rate was less than anticipated. The participant recruitment rate was greater than anticipated. The rate of attrition was 23% and varied by less than 1% according to the arm of the trial. There was a reduction of alcohol consumed under the intervention conditions. Estimated mean difference, and 95% CI (UK units): - 3.76 (- 5.01 to - 2.52). The sample size required for a RCT is 53. Participants did not find one lager more pleasant in taste: (on a scale of one to 10) - 0.95 (- 2.11 to 0.21). Participants found the reduced-strength lager less enjoyable: (on a scale of one to 10) - 1.44 (- 2.64 to - 0.24) and they perceived themselves to be less intoxicated after consuming it: (on a scale of one to 10) - 1.00 (- 1.61 to - 0.40).
conclusionA RCT is feasible with minor alterations to the study protocol and scoping work to establish different brands of alcohol that are more alike and more enjoyable than the products used in the pilot trial.
trial registrationRegistered in the American Economic Association (AEA) Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) Registry as of 16 June 2017. Unique identifying number: AEARCTR-0002266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.