Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11300181›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2001

Comparing two different methods of identifying alcohol related problems in the emergency department: a real chance to intervene?

A Hadida, N Kapur, K Mackway-Jones, E Guthrie, F Creed

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A HadidaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK.
N Kapur
K Mackway-Jones
E Guthrie
F Creed

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the feasibility of screening for alcohol problems in a representative flow sample of patients attending a busy UK emergency department. To compare two methods of identifying alcohol related problems in the emergency department.

methodsBrief interview administered by the same interviewer to a representative flow sample of 429 patients attending a single accident and emergency department over a six week period. Measures included a CAGE questionnaire and assessments by the patient and staff as to whether the attendance was alcohol related.

results413 patients (96%) were successfully screened. Of these, 115 (28%) patients were considered to have an alcohol related attendance on the basis of the CAGE questionnaire or the staff assessment. Head injuries and psychiatric presentations were particularly likely to be associated with alcohol misuse. Compared with those identified by staff, patients scoring above threshold on the CAGE were more likely to attend during routine working hours and recognise they had an alcohol problem.

conclusionsEmergency departments may provide an opportunity for the early prevention of alcohol related difficulties. However, patients with alcohol problems who present to the emergency department are not a homogenous group. Different screening methods identify different groups of patients, who in turn may respond to different forms of intervention. Further research examining the efficacy and feasibility of different alcohol treatment approaches is needed to enable us to target specific interventions to those patients who might most benefit.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlcohol-Related DisordersChildEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPersonality Assessment

Identifiers

PMID11300181
PMCPMC1725533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.