SynthesisDrug and alcohol review2022
Do different actors submit different evidence to alcohol advertising policy consultations?
Synthesis in Drug and alcohol review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do different actors submit different evidence to alcohol advertising policy consultations?Drug and alcohol review · 2022Pooled it
- An analysis of framing mechanisms used in alcohol industry submissions to an Australian national parliamentary inquiry.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Labelling the debate: a thematic analysis of alcohol industry submissions to the EU consultation on alcohol health warnings in Ireland.Globalization and health · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study examined the extent to which industry and non-industry actors draw from the same (vs. different) bodies of peer-reviewed evidence in submissions to alcohol advertising policy consultations.
methodsSubmissions (n = 71) to two Australian public consultations about alcohol advertising policy were classified as submitted by industry or non-industry actors. Details of cited journal articles were extracted. Articles were coded according to whether: (i) cited in industry and/or non-industry actor submission/s; (ii) findings were supported or contested by the submitter; and (iii) the article was a systematic review. The most frequently cited first authors were identified.
resultsIn total, 126 articles were cited in 45 industry actor submissions and 159 articles were cited in 26 non-industry actor submissions. Only seven articles were cited by both groups. Authors cited most frequently by one actor group were rarely cited by the other group. The first author most cited by industry actors declared alcohol industry links in two articles. Industry actors cited three systematic reviews (and contested the findings); non-industry actors cited (and supported) seven systematic reviews. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThere was a low degree of overlap in peer-reviewed evidence cited by industry and non-industry actors in submissions to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations. Industry actors often omitted or contested high-quality evidence. Industry actors placed greater emphasis on evidence published by one industry-linked researcher than on evidence from systematic reviews and researchers with no apparent conflicts of interest. The findings raise questions about the suitability of industry actors to participate in evidence-informed policymaking processes.
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.