Solmi Marco, Civardi Serena, Corti Roberto, Anil John, Demurtas Jacopo, Lange Shannon, Radua Joaquim, Dragioti Elena, Fusar-Poli Paolo, Carvalho Andre F
Neuroscience Department, University of Padua, Italy; Padua Neuroscience Center, University of Padua, Italy; Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Laboratory, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Feb;121:20-28. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.11.010. Epub 2020 Nov 25.
The credibility of evidence of various environmental risk factors for alcohol and tobacco use disorders (AUD/TUD) needs to be graded to identify groups to target with selective prevention. A systematic umbrella review was conducted (PubMed/PsycINFO), grading credibility of meta-analyses of prospective/retrospective observational cohort studies assessing risk/protective factors for AUD/TUD, applying established quantitative criteria. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Quality of eligible meta-analyses was assessed with AMSTAR-2. Out of 8464 unique references, 80 full text articles were scrutinized, and 12 meta-analyses, corresponding to 21 individual estimates of 12 putative risk/protective factors (n = 241,300), were included. In main analyses no association had convincing nor highly suggestive evidence for AUD/TUD. Six associations had suggestive evidence for AUD, two for TUD. Among these, in sensitivity analyses without >1000 cases criterion, convincing evidence emerged for parental alcohol supply, and impulsivity traits in college students for AUD, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for TUD. Other associations were supported by weak evidence/were not nominally significant. Few risk factors identified at-risk groups where selective preventative strategies could be developed to prevent AUD/TUD.
为了确定可针对其开展选择性预防的群体,需要对酒精和烟草使用障碍(AUD/TUD)各种环境风险因素的证据可信度进行分级。我们进行了一项系统的综合综述(通过PubMed/PsycINFO),应用既定的定量标准,对评估AUD/TUD风险/保护因素的前瞻性/回顾性观察队列研究的荟萃分析的可信度进行分级。我们进行了敏感性分析。使用AMSTAR-2评估合格荟萃分析的质量。在8464篇独特参考文献中,对80篇全文文章进行了审查,纳入了12项荟萃分析,对应于12个假定风险/保护因素的21项个体估计(n = 241,300)。在主要分析中,没有关联对AUD/TUD有令人信服或高度提示性的证据。六项关联对AUD有提示性证据,两项对TUD有提示性证据。其中,在没有>1000例标准的敏感性分析中,出现了关于父母酒精供应、大学生冲动特质与AUD以及注意缺陷多动障碍与TUD的令人信服的证据。其他关联得到的证据薄弱/名义上不显著。很少有风险因素能确定可制定选择性预防策略以预防AUD/TUD的高危群体。