Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24550847›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2014

How Many People have Alcohol Use Disorders? Using the Harmful Dysfunction Analysis to Reconcile Prevalence Estimates in Two Community Surveys.

Jerome C Wakefield, Mark F Schmitz

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Screening for high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder: update of the 2023 national clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Examination of the mild, moderate, and severe alcohol use disorder severity indicators using a nationally representative sample.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2024
    Article
  5. Prevalence and characteristics of participants inFrontiers in public health · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Intensity of Daily Drinking and Its Relation to Alcohol Use Disorders.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Limits of Current Approaches to Diagnosis Severity Based on Criterion Counts: An Example with DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2015
    Article
  15. Review
  16. DSM-5, psychiatric epidemiology and the false positives problem.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2015
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Alternative models of addiction.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jerome C WakefieldSilver School of Social Work and Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, New York University , New York, NY , USA.
Mark F SchmitzSchool of Social Work, Temple University , Philadelphia, PA , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community prevalence rates of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) provided by epidemiological studies using DSM-based diagnostic criteria pose several challenges: the rates appear implausibly high to many epidemiologists; they do not converge across similar studies; and, due to low service utilization by those diagnosed as disordered, they yield estimates of unmet need for services so high that credibility for planning purposes is jeopardized. For example, two early community studies using DSM diagnostic criteria, the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study (ECA) and the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), yielded lifetime AUD prevalence rates of 14 and 24%, respectively, with NCS unmet need for services 19% of the entire population. Attempts to address these challenges by adding clinical significance requirements to diagnostic criteria have proven unsuccessful. Hypothesizing that these challenges are due to high rates of false-positive diagnoses of problem drinking as AUDs, we test an alternative approach. We use the harmful dysfunction (HD) analysis of the concept of mental disorder as a guide to construct more valid criteria within the framework of the standard out-of-control model of AUD. The proposed HD criteria require harm and dysfunction, where harm can be any negative social, personal, or physical outcome, and dysfunction requires either withdrawal symptoms or inability to stop drinking. Using HD criteria, ECA and NCS lifetime prevalences converge to much-reduced rates of 6 and 6.8%, respectively. Due to higher service utilization rates, NCS lifetime unmet need is reduced to 3.4%. Service use and duration comparisons suggest that HD criteria possess increased diagnostic validity. Moreover, HD criteria eliminate 90% of transient teenage drinking from disorder status. The HD version of the out-of-control model thus potentially resolves the three classic prevalence challenges while offering a more rigorous approach to distinguishing AUDs from problematic drinking.

Indexed as

addictionalcohol dependencealcohol use disorderdiagnostic criteriaharmful dysfunctionpsychiatric epidemiologyvalidity of diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID24550847
PMCPMC3910138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.