Search

Abstract Cohort and case-control data have suggested an association between low to moderate alcohol consumption and decreased risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD), yet results from Mendelian randomization (MR) studies designed to reduce bias have shown either no or a harmful association. Here we conducted an updated systematic review and re-evaluated existing cohort, case-control, and MR data using the burden of proof meta-analytical framework. Cohort and case-control data show low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with decreased IHD risk – specifically, intake is inversely related to IHD and myocardial infarction morbidity in both sexes and IHD mortality in males – while pooled MR data show no association, confirming that self-reported versus genetically predicted alcohol use data yield conflicting findings about the alcohol-IHD relationship. Our results highlight the need to advance MR methodologies and emulate randomized trials using large observational databases to obtain more definitive answers to this critical public health question.

Abstract Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) conducted with non-randomized exposures, published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

Abstract Chewing tobacco use poses serious health risks; yet it has not received as much attention as other tobacco-related products. This study synthesizes existing evidence regarding the health impacts of chewing tobacco while accounting for various sources of uncertainty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of chewing tobacco and seven health outcomes, drawing on 103 studies published from 1970 to 2023. We use a Burden of Proof meta-analysis to generate conservative risk estimates and find weak-to-moderate evidence that tobacco chewers have an increased risk of stroke, lip and oral cavity cancer, esophageal cancer, nasopharynx cancer, other pharynx cancer, and laryngeal cancer. We additionally find insufficient evidence of an association between chewing tobacco and ischemic heart disease. Our findings highlight a need for policy makers, researchers, and communities at risk to devote greater attention to chewing tobacco by both advancing tobacco control efforts and investing in strengthening the existing evidence base.

IntroductionThe 21-point Brain Care Score (BCS) was developed through a modified Delphi process in partnership with practitioners and patients to promote behavior changes and lifestyle choices in order to sustainably reduce the risk of dementia and stroke. We aimed to assess the associations of the BCS with risk of incident dementia and stroke.MethodsThe BCS was derived from the United Kingdom Biobank (UKB) baseline evaluation for participants aged 40–69 years, recruited between 2006–2010. Associations of BCS and risk of subsequent incident dementia and stroke were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regressions, adjusted for sex assigned at birth and stratified by age groups at baseline.ResultsThe BCS (median: 12; IQR:11–14) was derived for 398,990 UKB participants (mean age: 57; females: 54%). There were 5,354 incident cases of dementia and 7,259 incident cases of stroke recorded during a median follow-up of 12.5 years. A five-point higher BCS at baseline was associated with a 59% (95%CI: 40-72%) lower risk of dementia among participants aged 59 years. A five-point higher BCS was associated with a 48% (95%CI: 39-56%) lower risk of stroke among participants aged 59.DiscussionThe BCS has clinically relevant and statistically significant associations with risk of dementia and stroke in approximately 0.4 million UK people. Future research includes investigating the feasibility, adaptability and implementation of the BCS for patients and providers worldwide.

Introduction Causal methods have been adopted and adapted across health disciplines, particularly for the analysis of single studies. However, the sample sizes necessary to best inform decision-making are often not attainable with single studies, making pooled individual-level data analysis invaluable for public health efforts. Researchers commonly implement causal methods prevailing in their home disciplines, and how these are selected, evaluated, implemented and reported may vary widely. To our knowledge, no article has yet evaluated trends in the implementation and reporting of causal methods in studies leveraging individual-level data pooled from several studies. We undertake this review to uncover patterns in the implementation and reporting of causal methods used across disciplines in research focused on health outcomes. We will investigate variations in methods to infer causality used across disciplines, time and geography and identify gaps in reporting of methods to inform the development of reporting standards and the conversation required to effect change.Methods and analysis We will search four databases (EBSCO, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) using a search strategy developed with librarians from three universities (Heidelberg University, Harvard University, and University of California, San Francisco). The search strategy includes terms such as ‘pool*’, ‘harmoniz*’, ‘cohort*’, ‘observational’, variations on ‘individual-level data’. Four reviewers will independently screen articles using Covidence and extract data from included articles. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively in tables and graphically to reveal the pattern in methods implementation and reporting. This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020143148).Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval was required as only publicly available data were used. The results will be submitted as a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated in conferences if relevant, and published as part of doctoral dissertations in Global Health at the Heidelberg University Hospital.