ReviewCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
Review of Canadian low-risk drinking guidelines and their effectiveness.
Review in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique. 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.
- Exposure to revised drinking guidelines and 'COM-B' determinants of behaviour change: descriptive analysis of a monthly cross-sectional survey in England.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Low-risk drinking guidelines: the scientific evidence.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publiqueReview
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
This study compared 18 low-risk drinking guidelines that were gathered from Canadian government agencies, non-government agencies, medical bodies, and public and private agencies involved in the treatment of addictions. The results show that two sets of guidelines are predominantly used in Ontario. The formulation of these guidelines was entirely independent and their intended audiences are also different. However, a direct comparison of the two guidelines shows that differences are more apparent than real. This study also examines the literature evaluating low-risk drinking guidelines Very little literature exists on evaluating low-risk drinking guidelines as vehicles for primary prevention and it is not known to what extent such guidelines influence knowledge and drinking behaviour. Future low-risk drinking recommendations should be evaluated for knowledge about standard drink units, awareness of the guidelines, use of materials and aids included in the dissemination program, and changes in behaviour from campaign exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9735517PMC6990282What 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.