Back

Alcohol, Cardiovascular Disease, and Industry Influence: A Meta-review

Golder, S.; Lau, O.; Hartwell, G.; Blanchard, L.; Gibson, A.; Crookes, C.; Foster Davies, L.; Glover, R.

2026-03-20 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.03.18.26348685 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: This meta-review compares methodological and reporting approaches between systematic reviews examining alcohol dose and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and assesses whether alcohol industry involvement is associated with divergent conclusions. Methods: KSR Evidence was searched 6 May 2025 to update a cohort of 60 systematic reviews from previous review. Reviews were included if they examined any dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and CVD. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data on review characteristics, and citations. Methodological quality was appraised using AMSTAR 2. For a matched sample of reviews with and without known alcohol industry funding, the overlap of included primary studies was compared using Corrected Covered Area (CCA) analysis. Results: Thirty additional systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, yielding 90 systematic reviews (1996-2025). Most (60.0%, 54/90) concluded that alcohol had a cardioprotective effect, whereas 31.1% (28/90) concluded no evidence of protection, and 8.9% (8/90) were inconclusive. Twenty reviews (22.0%) had declared or inferred alcohol industry funding or author connection; all but one reported a protective effect at lower doses, the other was inconclusive. Industry-connected reviews were cited more often (mean 575.9 vs 193.0, p=0.0002) and more commonly examined overall CVD rather than specific conditions (such as hypertension or stroke). Study overlap was low (CCA 2.59%) and 99% of reviews were rated as critically low quality. Conclusions: The fragmented evidence base is of poor methodological quality with selective inclusion of studies. Alcohol industry connections are strongly associated, with conclusions favouring alcohol consumption, highlighting the need for independent high-quality systematic reviews.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
2
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
12.6%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.5%
5
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
8
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
10
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
12
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
15
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
17
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
20
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 69%
1.0%
22
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
26
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
27
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
29
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
30
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%