Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 228

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta‐analysis of alcohol and all‐cause mortality: a validation of NHMRC recommendations

Holman, C D'Arcy J, English, Dallas R, Milne, Elizabeth, Winter, Michael G·1996·Medical Journal of Australia

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommendations on responsible, hazardous and harmful alcohol intake with their effects on all-cause mortality in men and women and on the occurrence of 10 specific neoplastic, cardiovascular and alimentary diseases. DESIGN: Meta-analyses of relative risks of mortality in relation to usual level of alcohol intake pooled from 16 cohort studies (mostly of adults over 35 years), and alcohol and selected conditions from a further 132 epidemiological studies. Results reported by authors were assigned to sex-specific exposure categories defined by the NHMRC based on median alcohol intakes. Pooled estimates of relative risk were calculated using precision-based weighting. SETTING: The assessment was part of comprehensive meta-analysis of epidemiological research undertaken for the National Drug Strategy. RESULTS: Relative risk of all-cause mortality in male drinkers compared with abstainers fell to 0.84 at 1.0-1.9 standard drinks per day, returned to 1.01 by 3.0-3.9 drinks, and increased to 1.37 at six or more drinks. In female drinkers the lowest relative risk (of 0.88) was at 0-0.9 drinks per day, and by 2.0-2.9 drinks the risk exceeded that in abstainers by 1.13; at six drinks the relative risk was 1.58. Based on NHMRC categories, the relative risks of mortality were 0.93 (0.93-0.94) in responsible drinkers, 1.24 (1.22-1.27) in hazardous drinkers and 1.37 (1.35-1.49) in harmful drinkers. Risk of cancers of the oropharynx, oesophagus, liver, larynx and female breast and of cirrhosis of the liver increased with increasing alcohol intake level. CONCLUSIONS: A pattern of usual alcohol intake consistent with the NHMRC recommendations will confer a mortality risk similar to or less than that observed in abstainers. The biologically effective dose of alcohol on mortality in women is approximately two standard drinks per day less than in men. Our validation is most reliable for drinkers aged 35 years or older.

Overview

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 · 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb122011.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 228

Metadata

Authors
Holman, C. D. J., English, D. R., Milne, E., & Winter, M. G.
Venue
Medical Journal of Australia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-02
Volume
164
Issue
3
Pages
141-145
ISSN
  • 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
  • 1326-5377
OpenAlex
W2230251077
Cited by
228
References
3
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta‐analysis of alcohol and all‐cause mortality: a validation of NHMRC recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb122011.x
The paper
Holman, C. D. J., English, D. R., Milne, E., & Winter, M. G. (1996). Meta‐analysis of alcohol and all‐cause mortality: a validation of NHMRC recommendations. Medical Journal of Australia. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb122011.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.