Ing behaviours predicted child’s alcohol use and intoxication at ages 14 and 17 (eight path coefficients, range 0.02.16, P 0.001 for all) Maternal drinking predicted only alcohol use (OR = 2.six, P 0.01) , no association with paternal drinking Paternal, but not maternal, drinking predicted only excessive drinking ( = 0.16 for older and = 0.17 for younger adolescents, P 0.05) YesAddiction, 111, 204(Continues)Table 1. (Continued)Study Drinking frequency None Both parents Ages 90 combined Alcohol use frequency Ages 16CharacteristicsExposure measureOutcome(s) measureFindings YesPears, 2007 [37]103 families68bIngeborg Rossow et al.Poelen, 2007 [44]Twin households, n =47b Drinking frequency None 3 Each parents Ages 125 Regular separate drinking Ages 147, 19YesPoelen, 2009 [45]Twin households, n =48b Drinking frequency None 3 Both parents Ages 125 Problem separate drinking (CAGE) Ages 19YesTyler, 2006 [38] Binge Previous 30 2 drinking (5+) days Mother only Ages 102 Binge drinking (5+)Youth cohort, n =45cAges 146, 16Yes2015 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.Webster, 1989 [39]Community Not sample, clear n = 420 familiesVolumeNoneBoth parents Imply age separate 16Alcohol amount per weekMean ages 334 (SD eight.40.0)Grandparents’ alcohol use predicted parents’ alcohol use (path coefficient = 0.22, P 0.05) Only maternal drinking couple of occasions week predicted common drinking 7 years (OR = 1.78, P 0.001) later Only paternal drinking a few timesweek predicted difficulty drinking 7 years later (OR = 1.78, P 0.05). This didn’t differ for boys and girls Mother’s binge drinking predicted binge drinking at ages 146 ( = 0.171, P 0.01), not at ages 168 Father’s drinking (partial r = 015, P = 0.05) and mother’s drinking (partial r = 0.16, P = 0.04) predicted alcohol use in sons, only father’s drinking (partial r = 0.29, P 0.001) predicted alcohol use in daughtersYesSample size would be the PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21323909 quantity of individuals in the (multivariate) evaluation. aProportion that was followed-up and completed Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI); bour calculation depending on the figures in the write-up; cnet sample as proportion of initial gross sample when missing information excluded. TF = time-frame; cat = quantity of categories; parents comb = measure of parental drinking combined; CAGE = Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye-opener; OR = odds ratio; SD = common deviation.Addiction, 111, 204Table 2 Assessments of study characteristics favourable to causal inference and evaluation of study capacity for causal inference.Study characteristics favourable to causal inferenceAuthor, year, reference No No Acceptable Yes No No No Big Huge Yes No No NoMain focus on parentTheory-driven analyses offspring drinking aimed at assessing association causality Identification of Indolactam V supplier essential confounding aspects Sample size Relevant period Notes on outcome measureExposure measure gradedAssessment of parental drinking interactionCapacity for causal 
inference Small LittleAlati, 2005 [40] Alati, 2008 [41]No YesAlati, 2014 [42]YesYes No, long before outcome YesLimited data on important measureSomeArmstrong 2013 [29] No No No No No No No Yes YesNoSuggests parenting might Time-varying mediate the association. covariates included Evaluation not clearly aimed at addressing causality No No Yes No No No NoLittle Little Tiny Trajectories from ages 186 No LittleBailey, 2006 [30] Burk, 2011 [31]No NoCasswell, 2002 [46]NoOn the smaller sized side Tiny On the smaller sized side Acceptabl.
