Golder · Social science & medicine (1982) 2021 · Bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis · n=60 systematic reviews (231 unique authors)

Alcohol, cardiovascular disease and industry funding: A co-authorship network analysis of systematic reviews.

Cited 34 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis (graded by design analogy, not clinical CEBM)

PubMed 34607052 · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114450 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

The authors identified systematic reviews on alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) using the Epistemonikos database. They performed a co-authorship network analysis examining review characteristics, co-authorship subnetworks, author histories of alcohol industry funding, reported outcomes, and citation rates.

What was found

Across 60 systematic reviews with 231 unique authors, 14 reviews had authors with prior histories of alcohol industry funding (including 5 directly industry-funded). 100% (14/14) of these reviews reported a cardioprotective effect of alcohol and formed distinct co-authorship subnetworks. Among 46 reviews with no industry funding history, 54% (25/46) concluded alcohol had protective effects. Industry-associated reviews were more likely to assess broad endpoints like 'cardiovascular disease' or 'coronary heart disease' rather than specific conditions such as stroke or hypertension (93% [13/14] vs 41% [19/46], p < 0.001), included more studies on average (mean 29 vs 20), and were more widely cited.

Why it matters

This study demonstrates that author ties to the alcohol industry strongly correlate with unanimous reports of health benefits, broader outcome selection, and distinct citation networks in the CVD evidence base.

Limits

The bibliometric and network design shows associations rather than direct causal bias. The sample was restricted to systematic reviews indexed in Epistemonikos. The abstract does not evaluate the underlying methodological quality of each review or assess primary study-level risk of bias.

Cited by