Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25526794›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public.

Helen F Ashdown, Susannah Fleming, Elizabeth A Spencer, Matthew J Thompson, Richard J Stevens

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Helen F AshdownNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susannah FlemingNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth A SpencerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Matthew J ThompsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard J StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2014-07-052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of three personal breathalyser devices available for sale to the public marketed to test safety to drive after drinking alcohol.

designProspective comparative diagnostic accuracy study comparing two single-use breathalysers and one digital multiuse breathalyser (index tests) to a police breathalyser (reference test).

settingEstablishments licensed to serve alcohol in a UK city.

participantsOf 222 participants recruited, 208 were included in the main analysis. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years old or over, had consumed alcohol and were not intending to drive within the following 6 h. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of the breathalysers for the detection of being at or over the UK legal driving limit (35 µg/100 mL breath alcohol concentration).

results18% of participants (38/208) were at or over the UK driving limit according to the police breathalyser. The digital multiuse breathalyser had a sensitivity of 89.5% (95% CI 75.9% to 95.8%) and a specificity of 64.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 71.0%). The single-use breathalysers had a sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 75.4% to 99.1%) and 26.3% (95% CI 11.8% to 48.8%), and a specificity of 50.6% (95% CI 40.4% to 60.7%) and 97.5% (95% CI 91.4% to 99.3%), respectively. Self-reported alcohol consumption threshold of 5 UK units or fewer had a higher sensitivity than all personal breathalysers.

conclusionsOne alcohol breathalyser had sensitivity of 26%, corresponding to false reassurance for approximately three people in four who are over the limit by the reference standard, at least on the evening of drinking alcohol. The other devices tested had 90% sensitivity or higher. All estimates were subject to uncertainty. There is no clearly defined minimum sensitivity for this safety-critical application. We conclude that current regulatory frameworks do not ensure high sensitivity for these devices marketed to consumers for a decision with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Indexed as

AdultAlcoholic IntoxicationBreath TestsEthanolFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityEthanol

Identifiers

PMID25526794
PMCPMC4281544
OpenAlexW2146856043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.