Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20973848›Full record

SynthesisDrug and alcohol review2010

Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking.

Richard Saitz

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug and alcohol review, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 243 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Richard SaitzBoston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston 02118, USA. rsaitz@bu.edu
Boston University · US

Funding

Efficacy/Effectiveness of Unhealthy Drug Use Screening/Brief Intervention ModelsR01DA025068 · NIDA · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI SAITZ, RICHARD · 2008 to 2012
$5.5M
LINKAGE OF ALCOHOL ABUSERS TO PRIMARY CARER01AA010870 · NIAAA · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI SAITZ, RICHARD · 1996 to 2009
$4.5M
ENHANCED LINKAGE OF DRUG ABUSERS TO PRIMARY MEDICAL CARER01DA010019 · NIDA · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI SAMET, JEFFREY H. · 1996 to 2010
$3.9M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA010870NIAAA NIH HHS R01AA10019NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA010019NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA025068NIDA NIH HHS R01DA025068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

issuesAlthough screening and brief intervention (BI) in the primary-care setting reduces unhealthy alcohol use, its efficacy among patients with dependence has not been established. This systematic review sought to determine whether evidence exists for BI efficacy among patients with alcohol dependence identified by screening in primary-care settings. APPROACH: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) extracted from eight systematic reviews and electronic database searches published through September 2009. These RCTs compared outcomes among adults with unhealthy alcohol use identified by screening who received BI in a primary-care setting with those who received no intervention. KEY

findingsSixteen RCTs, including 6839 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 excluded some or all persons with very heavy alcohol use or dependence; one in which 35% of 175 patients had dependence found no difference in an alcohol severity score between groups; and one in which 58% of 24 female patients had dependence showed no efficacy. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Alcohol screening and BI has efficacy in primary care for patients with unhealthy alcohol use, but there is no evidence for efficacy among those with very heavy use or dependence. As alcohol screening identifies both dependent and non-dependent unhealthy use, the absence of evidence for the efficacy of BI among primary-care patients with screening-identified alcohol dependence raises questions regarding the efficiency of screening and BI, particularly in settings where dependence is common. The finding also highlights the need to develop new approaches to help such patients, particularly if screening and BI are to be disseminated widely.[Saitz R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking.

Indexed as

CounselingPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholismEthanolFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultEthanol

Identifiers

PMID20973848
PMCPMC2966031
OpenAlexW1649156037

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.