Suurin koskaan tehty yleiskatsaus päihteiden haittoihin.

Alue, jolle kuuluu keskustelu lähinnä luonnontieteistä, tutkimuksista ja tieteellisistä löydöistä.
powergrower
Kameleontti
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2005, 17:47
Location: viewtopic.php

Suurin koskaan tehty yleiskatsaus päihteiden haittoihin.

Post by powergrower »

Hieman vanha tutkimushan tämä jo on, mutta päätin tänne tiedepuolellekkin sen lisätä koska täältä on helppo sitten tarvittaessa löytää tämä tutkimus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... report.pdf
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Kalastaja

Re: Suurin koskaan tehty yleiskatsaus päihteiden haittoihin.

Post by Kalastaja »

Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse.
Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C.
Lancet. 2007 Mar 24;369(9566):1047-53

Drug misuse and abuse are major health problems. Harmful drugs are regulated according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and risks of each drug. However, the methodology and processes underlying classification systems are generally neither specified nor transparent, which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education messages. We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion. We also included five legal drugs of misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) for reference. The process proved practicable, and yielded roughly similar scores and rankings of drug harm when used by two separate groups of experts. The ranking of drugs produced by our assessment of harm differed from those used by current regulatory systems. Our methodology offers a systematic framework and process that could be used by national and international regulatory bodies to assess the harm of current and future drugs of abuse.

http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/2007/2007_Nutt_22898_1.pdf

Comment in:
Lancet. 2007 Jun 2;369(9576):1856-7; author reply 1857.
Lancet. 2007 Jun 2;369(9576):1856; author reply 1857.
Lancet. 2007 Mar 24;369(9566):972.

PubMed