Predictors and psychological pathways for binge drinking among South African men

The association between current smoking and binge drinking among adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies

BACKGROUND

The substantial increasing trend of binge drinking is a global alarm. Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies to explore the association of current smoking with binge drinking among adults.

METHODS

We systematically searched Web of Knowledge; PubMed; Scopus; Embase and Ovid (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, and PsycTests) (from inception to 27 May 2020) databases to identify cross-sectional studies of the association between current smoking and binge drinking. Study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were all carried out by two independent authors. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) was pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects model in the meta-analysis, followed by the investigation of the heterogeneity via Q-test and I ² statistic. We assessed publication bias using a funnel plot, the Egger's, and Begg's tests.

RESULTS

We identified 3,171 studies and included nine cross-sectional studies with 64,516 participants. A significant association was found between current smoking and binge drinking among both genders (AOR = 2.97; 95% CI = 1.98 to 4.45; I ² = 90.5%). Subgroup analysis showed that this association among women, men, Caucasians, and Asians/Africans were (AOR = 3.68; 95% CI = 1.03 to 13.18; I ² = 98.9%), (AOR = 2.53; 95% CI = 1.87 to 3.42; I ² = 73.1%), (AOR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.01-1.83, I ² = 47.4%), and (AOR = 3.93; 95% CI: 2.99-5.17, I ² = 61.3%), respectively. There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Current smoking is associated with binge drinking and can be used for identifying and screening binge drinkers. Moreover, this association is stronger among men, and Asians/Africans. This meta-analysis estimation was limited to English-language studies, and the full text of about 3.5% of reports for retrieval was not found, then generalization of the results should be done with caution.