Summary of findings 2. Alcohol ban compared to no ban for the general population.

Alcohol ban compared to no ban for the general population
Patient or population: General population Settings: General population Intervention: Alcohol ban Comparison: No ban
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of pParticipants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	No ban	Alcohol ban
Alcohol consumption: % change in beer consumption Follow up: 1.2 to 3 years		The mean % change in beer consumption in the intervention groups was 1.1 more (5.26 less to 7.47 more)		2 ITS studies	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2	Results for consumption of other types of alcoholic beverages and total consumption were inconsistent in the three ITS studies
Reduction in rate of reported risk behaviour ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	None of the studies measured this outcome
Delayed age of initiation of alcohol use ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	None of the studies measured this outcome
Reduction in alcohol‐related injuries or accidents ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	None of the studies measured this outcome
Reduction in individual spending on alcohol ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	None of the studies measured this outcome
Loss of revenue from alcohol industry ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	None of the studies measured this outcome
Loss of advertising revenue ‐ not reported	See comment	See comment	Not estimable	‐	See comment	None of the studies measured this outcome
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; ITS: interrupted time series
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹ Risk of bias: rated as serious: the risk of a dilution effect is present in both studies (Ogborne 1980 and Smart 1976) and seasonality may not be adequately addressed in the analyses. The studies were not further downgraded for limitations in causal inference due to a lack of randomisation, as the initial GRADE rating commenced at low quality.
 ² Inconsistency: rated as serious. The results from the Smart 1976 study indicate a reduction in beer consumption after implementing a ban on advertising and Ogborne 1980 shows an increase in beer consumption.