DLM: Alcohol (2001)
Citation:
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To analyze the association between alcohol consumption and the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and mortality in a 25-year follow-up of military study subjects.
Inclusion Criteria:
Swedish men in military service between July 1, 1969 and June 30, 1970 and born between 1949 and 1952.
Exclusion Criteria:
None specified.
Description of Study Protocol:
- 50,465 Swedish men conscripted into the army between July 1, 1969 and June 30, 1970
- Those born 1949 to 1952 (N=49,618) selected for analysis were followed for 25 years
- At time of conscription, two questionnaires on social background, behavior and use of alcohol and tobacco as well as psycological assessment competed (non-response rate 1 to 2%)
- Alcohol consumption levels converted to grams of alcohol per day
- Participants followed through personal identification numbers for medical outcomes, cause of death, etc.
- Risk of death, myocardial infarct and stroke relative to reported alcohol consumption calculated.
Data Collection Summary:
- At time of conscription:
- Completed two questionnaires to obtain information about social background, behavior and use of alcohol and tobacco
- Alcohol consumption divided into groups by grams of 100% ethanol per day (0, 0.1 to 14.9, 15 to 30, ≥30, ≥15)
- For outcomes:
- Swedish Death Register
- National Inpatient Register
- Outcome measures:
- Death, all cause
- Death, CVD
- Hospitalization for MI or stroke.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Relative risk calculated from logistic regression analysis with adjustments for blood pressure, body mass index, father's social class, running away from home, poor school well-being, parental divorce, poor emotional control, few friends, unemployment, poor health and smoking.
Alcohol (g/day) | Death (N=1473) | Myocardial Infarction (N=279) | Stroke (N=223) |
0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
0.1-14.9 | 1.13 (0.85-1.50) | 0.90 (0.45-1.80) | 1.59 (0.64-3.92) |
15-30 | 1.32 (0.98-1.79) | 0.77 (0.37-1.63) | 1.52 (0.57-4.00) |
≥30 | 1.53 (1.08-2.16) | 0.61 (0.26-1.44) | 2.30 (0.81-6.43) |
≥15 | 1.37 (1.01-1.85) | 0.73 (0.35-1.52) | 1.70 (0.66-4.40) |
Summary of Results:
- Compared with abstainers, alcohol consumers had higher unadjusted risk for death, MI and stroke. Higher levels of alchohol intake had higher risk.
- Adjusted analysis showed increased risk of death and stroke but decreased risk of MI
- Increase alcohol intake associated strongly with increased smoking. Smoking one to 10 cigarettes caused increased relative risk of death (3.02) and ≥11 cigarettes (5.20).
- The attributable proportion in multivariate analysis for alcohol consumption, relative to abstention, was 14% for mortality, 37% for stroke while alcohol prevented 16% of MI.
Author Conclusion:
- The results indicate a cardioprotective effect of alcohol use in relatively young men, in whom MI is rare. However, calculation of the attributable proportions clearly indicated that alcohol consumption had a negative net effect on the subjects health up to the age of 45.
- The results support a restrictive alcohol policy and recommendations for little or no alcohol consumption by young men.
Funding Source:
Government: | Danish Medical Research Council |
Reviewer Comments:
- Limited actual data available in the report (i.e., number of subjects in each consumption group) and significance of findings not reported
- Authors also note the potential question of validity in using self-reported alcohol consumption at conscription as a measure of lifestyle over span of the study. However, this did seem to correlate based on rate of alcohol-related hospitalization and diagnosis during the 25-year study.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | No | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | No | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | No | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | No | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | No | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | No | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | ??? | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | ??? | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | No | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | No | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | Yes | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | Yes | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | No | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | No | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | No | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | No | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | N/A | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | N/A | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | No | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | No | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | No | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | No | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | No | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | No | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | No | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | No | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | N/A | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | N/A | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | Yes | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | Yes | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | No | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | No | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | No | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | No | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | No | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | No | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | N/A | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | N/A | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | Yes | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | No | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | No | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |