Hostiuc Sorin, Moldoveanu Alin, Negoi Ionuţ, Drima Eduard
Department of Legal Medicine and Bioethics, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Faculty of Automatic Control and Computers, Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Front Pharmacol. 2018 Feb 12;9:99. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00099. eCollection 2018.
In the last years were published many epidemiological articles aiming to link driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) with the risk of various unfavorable traffic events (UTEs), with sometimes contradictory results. The primary objective of this study was to analyze whether there is a significant association between DUIC and UTEs. We used two meta-analytical methods to assess the statistical significance of the effect size: random-effects model and inverse variance heterogeneity model. Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. We obtained significant increases in the effect size for DUIC tested through blood analysis, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.97 and a confidence interval (CI) between 1.35 and 2.87; [corrected] death as an outcome, with an OR of 1.56 and a CI between 1.16 and 2.09; and case-control as the type of study, with an OR of 1.99 and a CI between 1.05 and 3.80. Publication bias was very high. Our analysis suggests that the overall effect size for DUIC on UTEs is not statistically significant, but there are significant differences obtained through subgroup analysis. This result might be caused by either methodological flaws (which are often encountered in articles on this topic), the indiscriminate employment of the term "cannabis use," or an actual absence of an adverse effect. When a driver is found, in traffic, with a positive reaction suggesting cannabis use, the result should be corroborated by either objective data regarding marijuana usage (like blood analyses, with clear cut-off values), or a clinical assessment of the impairment, before establishing his/her fitness to drive.
在过去几年中,发表了许多流行病学文章,旨在将大麻影响下驾驶(DUIC)与各种不良交通事件(UTE)的风险联系起来,结果有时相互矛盾。本研究的主要目的是分析DUIC与UTE之间是否存在显著关联。我们使用了两种荟萃分析方法来评估效应大小的统计学意义:随机效应模型和逆方差异质性模型。荟萃分析纳入了24项研究。通过血液分析检测的DUIC效应大小显著增加,优势比(OR)为1.97,置信区间(CI)在1.35至2.87之间;以死亡为结局,OR为1.56,CI在1.16至2.09之间;以病例对照为研究类型,OR为1.99,CI在1.05至3.80之间。发表偏倚非常高。我们的分析表明,DUIC对UTE的总体效应大小在统计学上不显著,但通过亚组分析获得了显著差异。这一结果可能是由于方法学缺陷(该主题的文章中经常出现)、“大麻使用”一词的随意使用,或者实际上不存在不良影响。当在交通中发现一名司机大麻使用检测呈阳性时,在确定其是否适合驾驶之前,结果应由关于大麻使用的客观数据(如血液分析,有明确的临界值)或对损伤的临床评估来证实。