Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40111926›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2025

Thou doth protest too much: How the minimum unit price affected retailers' revenue.

Nicholas Taylor, Ryan Baldwin, Emma Vieira, Michael Livingston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicholas TaylorNational Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8700-5909
Ryan BaldwinSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Emma VieiraNational Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0786-056X
Michael LivingstonNational Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8995-9386

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Northern Territory (NT) set a minimum unit price (MUP) of alcohol in 2018. This measure has been strongly opposed by alcohol retailers, prior to and post-implementation of the policy. However, exact estimates on the impact of the MUP on alcohol retailers are yet to be made. This study aims to estimate the impact of the MUP on retail sales.

methodThe 3-year evaluation of the MUP used sales data from two major retailers to display alcohol consumption in the NT by beverage category and price point the year before and after the MUP. This data was extracted from the report and used to estimate the total retail value of alcohol sold before and after the MUP by category. State-wide alcohol wholesaler data was used to evaluate the representativeness of the retail data.

resultsThe retail data used in the study accounts for 31% of the total alcohol market in the NT. Retail data substantially over-represents the drop in cask wine consumption (71%) compared to wholesaler data (51%). Revenue from cask wine dropped by 42% after the introduction of the MUP, but these reductions were offset by increases in revenue from spirit sales. Overall, despite a 6% decrease in sales of pure alcohol, the two retailers had an increase in revenue of 1%. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsThe MUP appears to have had a negligible impact on the revenue of alcohol retailers in the NT.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesCommerceHumansalcoholminimum unit pricepolicyretail data

Identifiers

PMID40111926
PMCPMC12117285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.