Which interventions for alcohol use should be included in a universal healthcare benefit package? An umbrella review of targeted interventions to address harmful drinking and dependence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify targeted interventions for the prevention and treatment of harmful alcohol use. Umbrella review methodology was used to summarise the effectiveness across a broad range of interventions, in order to identify which interventions should be considered for inclusion within universal health coverage schemes in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on targeted interventions addressing alcohol use in harmful drinkers or individuals with alcohol use disorder. We only included outcomes related to alcohol consumption, heavy drinking, binge drinking, abstinence, or alcohol-attributable accident, injury, morbidity or mortality. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the International HTA Database were searched from inception to 3 September 2021. Risk of bias of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. After reviewing the abstracts of 9,167 articles, results were summarised narratively and certainty in the body of evidence for each intervention was assessed using GRADE. In total, 86 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which the majority reported outcomes for brief intervention (30 studies) or pharmacological interventions (29 studies). Overall, methodological quality of included studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: For harmful drinking, brief interventions, cognitive behavioural therapy, and motivational interviewing showed a small effect, whereas mentoring in adolescents and children may have a significant long-term effect. For alcohol use disorder, social network approaches and acamprosate showed evidence of a significant and durable effect. More evidence is required on the effectiveness of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), nalmefene, and quetiapine, as well as optimal combinations of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. As an umbrella review, we were unable to identify the extent to which variation between studies stemmed from differences in intervention delivery or variation between country contexts. Further research is required on applicability of findings across settings and best practice for implementation. Funded by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, grant number 61-00-1812.

Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) has increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions. METHODS: We searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from May 2010 to September 2021. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. We compared URs characteristics stratified by publication year, journal ranking, journal impact factor using Chi-square test. RESULTS: Ninety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied. CONCLUSIONS: Half of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs.