ReviewNutrients2026
The Unfinished Debate on Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages: Conflicting Evidence, Public Health Messages and the Missing Trial.
Review in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A biphasic effect of alcohol on endothelial plasticity through regulation of endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026Article
- Exploring Phosphatidylethanol Cutoffs for Self-Reported Unhealthy Alcohol Use: An International Multi-Site Analysis.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The overall health impact of alcohol remains controversial. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study made headlines in 2018 by stating that zero alcohol was the safest option. However, its 2022 update introduced age-specific adaptations, asserting that moderate drinking may offer net benefits in some populations. The 2025 U.S. Surgeon General report also discouraged any alcohol intake because of associated cancer risks, but a simultaneous report by the National Academies emphasized tailoring recommendations to individual risks. Mendelian randomization (MR) studies found no health benefits and highlighted increased risks-even at low alcohol doses-challenging dozens of conventional epidemiologic findings in large observational cohorts, some of them of high methodological quality. Given these contradictions, there is a pressing need for large randomized controlled trials in drinkers promoting cessation versus moderation. While small trials have shown some metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of moderate red wine consumption, no large-scale randomized trial has yet assessed hard clinical outcomes comprehensively. Without such evidence, debates will persist. Current guidelines appropriately discourage alcohol in certain populations, but generalizations such as "no safe level of alcohol" might lack sufficient empirical support and perhaps they need a tailored and practical strategy in the context of precision medicine. A balanced, evidence-based approach-free from bias, independent of the industry and grounded in rigorous research-is essential for informed public health policy decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.