Cited by 215Alcohol Consumption and Health EffectsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Are Lifetime Abstainers the Best Control Group in Alcohol Epidemiology? On the Stability and Validity of Reported Lifetime Abstention

Open access
Rehm, J., Irving, H., Ye, Y., Kerr, W. C., Bond, J., Greenfield, T. K.·2008·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Lifetime abstainers have often been recommended as the comparison group in alcohol epidemiology. The objective of this study was to provide insight into the validity and stability of lifetime abstention by using data derived from the National Alcohol Survey, a national probability survey of US households conducted in 1984, and its 2 follow-up surveys conducted in 1990 and 1992. Results indicated that more than half (52.9%; all proportions were weighted to represent the US population) of those who reported never having a drink of any alcoholic beverage in the 1992 survey reported drinking in previous surveys. Depending on assumptions, this difference may result in an underestimation of alcohol-attributable mortality of 2%-15% in men and 2%-22% in women. Sociodemographic factors differentiated those who consistently reported lifetime abstention across surveys from the rest of the study population. Results suggest that using reported lifetime abstainers as a sole comparison group is problematic, especially if reporting is based on 1 measurement only. Establishing multiple measurement points and including irregular lifetime light drinkers with lifetime abstainers as the comparison group are recommended for future epidemiologic studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwn093

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Relative risks for cancer are dependent on the systematic search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, reference group (including former drinkers), use of case-control and/or cohort studies, and use of categorical or continuous estimates for alcohol consumption.

    “Furthermore, as with other diseases related causally to alcohol consumption, the relative risks for cancer are dependent upon the systematic search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, reference group (and if this includes former drinkers) of the underlying studies 172, 173, 174, use of case–control and/or cohort studies 175 and use of categorical or continuous estimates for alcohol”
  • Lifetime abstention may be the theoretically preferred measure but has been proven to be unreliable.

    “life‐time abstention may be the theoretically preferred measure but has been proven to be unreliable 173”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [12]Santos RL Clark WB Hilton ME One approach to oversampling blacks and Hispanics: the National Alcohol Survey Alcohol in America: Drinking Practices and Problem 1991 Albany, NY State University of New York Press 329 344

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rehm, J., Irving, H., Ye, Y., Kerr, W. C., Bond, J., & Greenfield, T. K.
Affiliations
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Rehm, J.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2008-08-12
Volume
168
Issue
8
Pages
866-871
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2137074485
Cited by
215
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA016644, P50AA005595)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
alcohol consumption, measurement stability, alcohol-attributable mortality, National Alcohol Survey, follow-up survey, sociodemographic differences, light drinkers, comparison group selection
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Control Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review