|
Abstract
|
See correction at DOI 10.1177/20503245221090014
BackgroundThe development of drug driving policies should rest on sound epidemiological evidence as to the crash risks of driving after using psychoactive drugs. The findings from individual studies of the increased risk of crashing from the acute use of cannabis range in size from no increase (and perhaps even a protective effect) to a 10-fold increase. Coherent cannabis-driving policies cannot readily be developed from such an incoherent evidence base. A weighted average measure of risk, as provided by a meta-analysis, might be useful. However, if the range of risks found in the cannabis-crash studies reflects the different ways that a variety of biases are being expressed, then the simple application of a meta-analysis might provide little more than an average measure of bias. In other words, if the biases were predominantly inflationary, the meta-analysis would give an inflated estimate of crash risk; and if the biases were predominantly deflationary, the meta-analysis would give a deflated estimate of risk.ReviewWe undertook a systematic search of electronic databases, and identified 13 culpability studies and 4 case?control studies from which cannabis-crash odds ratios could be extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses gave summary odds ratios of 1.37 (1.10?1.69) for the culpability studies and 1.45 (0.94?2.25) for the case?control studies. A tool was designed to identify and score biases arising from: confounding by uncontrolled covariates; inappropriate selection of cases and controls; and the inappropriate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables. Each study was scrutinised for the presence of those biases, and given a total ?directional bias score?. Most of the biases were inflationary. A meta-regression against the total directional bias scores was performed for the culpability studies, giving a bias-adjusted summary odds ratio of 0.68 (0.45?1.05). The same analysis could not be performed for the case?control studies because there were only four such studies. Nonetheless, a monotonic relationship was found between the total bias scores and the cannabis-crash odds ratios, with Spearman's rho??=??0.95, p??=??0.05, indicating that the summary odds ratio of 1.45 is an overestimate. It is evident that the risks from driving after using cannabis are much lower than from other behaviours such as drink-driving, speeding or using mobile phones while driving. With the medical and recreational use of cannabis becoming more prevalent, the removal of cannabis-presence driving offences should be considered (while impairment-based offences would remain).
Keywords: Cannabis impaired driving
Language: en |