Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20659072›Full record

Trial reportAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2010

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT): 12-month outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial in a Polish emergency department.

Cheryl J Cherpitel, Rachael A Korcha, Jacek Moskalewicz, Grazyna Swiatkiewicz, Yu Ye, Jason Bond

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The mere-measurement effect of patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cheryl J CherpitelAlcohol Research Group, 6475 Christie Avenue, Suite 400, Emeryville, California, USA. ccherpitel@arg.org
Rachael A Korcha
Jacek Moskalewicz
Grazyna Swiatkiewicz
Yu Ye
Jason Bond
Alcohol Research Group · US

Funding

Brief Intervention in the ER in PolandR21AA016081 · NIAAA · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI CHERPITEL, CHERYL J · 2007 to 2008
$349k
NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA016081NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA016081-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA randomized controlled trial of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) among at-risk (based on average number of drinks per week and drinks per drinking day) and dependent drinkers was conducted in an emergency department (ED) among 446 patients 18 and older in Sosnowiec, Poland.

methodsPatients were recruited over a 23-week period (4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight) and randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: screened-only (n = 147), assessed (n = 152), and intervention (n = 147). Patients in the assessed and intervention conditions were blindly reassessed via a telephone interview at 3 months, and all 3 groups were assessed at 12 months (screened-only = 92, assessed = 99, and intervention = 87).

resultsNo difference was found across the 3 conditions in at-risk drinking at 12 months, as the primary outcome variable, or in decrease in the number of drinks per drinking day, with all 3 groups showing a significant reduction in both. Significant declines between baseline and 12 months in secondary outcomes of the RAPS4, number of drinking days per week, and the maximum number of drinks on an occasion were seen only for the intervention condition, and in negative consequences for both the assessment and intervention conditions.

conclusionsData suggest that improvements in drinking outcomes found in the assessment condition were not because of assessment reactivity, with both the screened and intervention conditions demonstrating greater (although nonsignificant) improvement than the assessed condition. Only those in the intervention condition showed significant improvement in all outcome variables from baseline to 12-month follow-up. Although group by time interaction effects were not found to be significant, these findings suggest that declines in drinking measures for those receiving a brief intervention can be maintained at long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

AdultAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismData Interpretation, StatisticalEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient DropoutsPatient SelectionPolandReferral and ConsultationSex FactorsTrauma Centers

Identifiers

PMID20659072
PMCPMC2965307
OpenAlexW1498603615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.