The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) critiques of alcohol research: Promoting health benefits and downplaying harms.
Saved in:
| Title: | The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) critiques of alcohol research: Promoting health benefits and downplaying harms. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Clay, James M. (AUTHOR), Stockwell, Tim (AUTHOR), Golder, Su (AUTHOR), Lawrence, Keegan (AUTHOR), McCambridge, Jim (AUTHOR), Vishnevsky, Nicole (AUTHOR), Zuckermann, Alexandra (AUTHOR), Naimi, Timothy (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Addiction. Nov2025, Vol. 120 Issue 11, p2319-2328. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Prevention of alcoholism, Alcoholism risk factors, Risk assessment, Data analysis, Logistic regression analysis, Descriptive statistics, Mann Whitney U Test, Research bias, Odds ratio, Harm reduction, Conflict of interests, Statistics, Health behavior, Health promotion, Confidence intervals, Sentiment analysis |
| Abstract: | Background and Aims: The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR), many of whose members are linked to the alcohol industry, has published over 280 critiques on alcohol and health research. This study investigated whether ISFAR critiques favour studies reporting alcohol's health benefits while being more critical of those identifying harms. We also examined whether industry‐funded studies are more likely to report benefits, and whether ISFAR's critiques reflect the methodological rigor of the studies they assess. Methods: We analysed 268 ISFAR critiques published between April 2010 and January 2024, manually coding each underlying study for its content (whether the original study reported alcohol‐related health benefits or harms) and each critique for its tone (positive or negative). Sentiment analysis (SA) algorithms were applied to critique summaries to assess tone using automated methods. Study authors were examined for prior receipt of alcohol industry funding. AMSTAR‐2 and ROBIS tools evaluated risk of bias in 36 systematic reviews and meta‐analyses favoured (n = 24) or criticised (n = 12) by ISFAR. Results: Studies reporting health benefits had higher odds of receiving positive reviews from ISFAR [odds ratio (OR) = 6.50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = (3.62–12.00)], as did studies minimising alcohol harms [OR = 2.47, 95% CI = (1.40–4.45)]. Studies reporting health harms had higher odds of receiving negative critiques [OR = 0.29, 95% CI = (0.15–0.14)], as did studies minimising health benefits [OR = 0.21, 95% CI = (0.10–0.41)]. Algorithmic SA replicated these patterns, though the correlation with manual coding was modest [r = 0.20, 95% CI = (0.08–0.32)]. Studies with industry ties had higher odds of minimising alcohol‐related harms [OR = 1.90, 95% CI = (1.04–3.50)], and those co‐authored by ISFAR members had higher odds of reporting a J‐shaped relationship between alcohol use and health [OR = 2.52, 95% CI = (1.00–6.48)]. No association was found between ISFAR sentiment and study quality as independently assessed by AMSTAR‐2 and ROBIS (BF01 = 6.13–6.21). Conclusion: Critiques from The International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) consistently promote alcohol's purported health benefits while minimising evidence of harm, regardless of study quality. These patterns provide a valuable resource for industry actors to shape public perception, downplay risk and influence policy—using strategies that closely resemble those historically employed by the tobacco industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Addiction is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
