Cited by 33Alcohol Consumption and Health EffectsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Methodological Biases in Estimating the Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Breast Cancer: The Role of Drinker Misclassification Errors in Meta‐Analytic Results

Open access
Zeisser, Cornelia, Stockwell, Tim R., Chikritzhs, Tanya·2014·Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

Abstract

Background: While alcohol consumption has been linked to breast cancer in women, few studies have controlled for possible biases created by including former or occasional drinkers in the abstainer reference group. We explored the potential for such misclassification errors as sources of bias in estimates of the alcohol–breast cancer relationship. Methods: Meta‐analyses of population case–control, hospital case–control, and cohort studies to examine relationships between level of alcohol use and breast cancer morbidity and/or mortality in groups of studies with and without different misclassification errors. Results: Of 60 studies identified, only 6 were free of all misclassification errors. The abstainer reference group was biased by the inclusion of former drinkers in 49 studies, occasional drinkers (<10 g ethanol [EtOH] per week) in 22 and by both these groups in 18. Occasional drinkers were also mixed with light or hazardous‐level drinkers in 22 studies. Unbiased estimates of the odds ratio (OR) for breast cancer were 1.011 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.891 to 1.148) among former drinkers (n = 11) and 1.034 (95% CI: 1.003 to 1.064) among occasional drinkers (n = 17). Hazardous‐level drinking (>20 g < 41 g EtOH/d) was not significantly associated with breast cancer in studies with occasional drinker bias. However, in studies free from occasional drinker bias, the OR for breast cancer was 1.085 (95% CI: 1.015 to 1.160) for low‐level (<21 g/d) drinkers (n = 17), 1.374 (95% CI: 1.319 to 1.431) for hazardous‐level drinkers (n = 26), and 1.336 (95% CI: 1.228 to 1.454) for harmful‐level (>40 g/d) drinkers (n = 9). Conclusions: While the great majority of studies of the alcohol–breast cancer link include misclassification errors, only misclassification of occasional drinkers was found to bias risk estimates significantly. Estimates based on error‐free studies confirmed that low, hazardous and harmful levels of alcohol use each significantly increase the risk of breast cancer.

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 · 10.1111/acer.12479

Cites

42 of 42 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”
  • Beneficial effects of non-heavy drinking on ischaemic diseases have been put into question for different reasons.

    “While these beneficial effects have been put into question for different reasons (e.g. 174, 258, 259), and while they may be overestimated using standard epidemiological methodology because of biased comparison groups 260, biological pathways corroborate some protective effect.”
  • The comparison group still is a problem in alcohol epidemiology.

    “Finally, the comparison group still is a problem 174”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeisser, C., Stockwell, T. R., & Chikritzhs, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Stockwell, Tim R.
Venue
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-08
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
2297-2306
ISSN
  • 0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-0277
OpenAlex
W1974587619
Cited by
33
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
US National Institutes of Health (1RO1AAO19939-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
alcohol consumption, breast cancer, misclassification bias, former drinkers, hazardous drinking, alcohol and cancer risk
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Comorbidity, Bias, Alcohol Abstinence

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