I have extracted a list of the articles upon which the CCSA has based its new guidelines. As I’ve noted elsewhere (repeatedly) they used sixteen, not nearly 6000 (extracted from 5915 studies). These were considered the only “high quality” studies although in their assessment some were considered low quality. (Read it yourself here, if you can understand the complicated selection process, which ain’t transparent).
Anyway, in the interest of some kind of transparency/crowd source research project, I’m including a pdf of the links below. It comes from extracting the articles they identify as worthy of inclusion in their research. I’m not using the world “high quality” because it is slippery. As you’ll see on p 5 (executive summary) these are systematic reviews “considered most appropriate to inform” the new guidelines. Later, p 6, they note that the screening process they used allowed them to identify “the latest, most high-quality evidence available.” And yet, when discussing two articles included relating to injuries, one was “low quality” and one was “very low quality.” It is not clear to me why they used this material, but I suspect it was the only research they had that showed very high risk of injury from alcohol. I could be wrong; maybe you can check it out and let me know.
Here is the file. I copied and smoothed the text and table, but otherwise left it alone.
(c) Dan Malleck 2023.
Drug History Canada 