Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25581661›Full record

Trial reportAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2014

Adjustments for drink size and ethanol content: new results from a self-report diary and transdermal sensor validation study.

Jason C Bond, Thomas K Greenfield, Deidre Patterson, William C Kerr

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Accuracy of transdermal alcohol monitoring devices in a laboratory setting.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jason C BondAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, California.
Thomas K Greenfield
Deidre Patterson
William C Kerr
Public Health Institute · US

Funding

TREND &STRUCTURE OF ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE--GENERAL POPULATION 1990 SURVEY DATAP50AA005595 · NIAAA · WESTERN CONSORTIUM FOR PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LUI, CAMILLIA K. · 1985 to 2025
$34.1M
Improving Alcohol Consumption Self-Report MeasurementR01AA013309 · NIAAA · PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE · PI GREENFIELD, THOMAS K · 2003 to 2007
$1.6M
NIAAA NIH HHS P50 AA005595NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA013309
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrior studies adjusting self-reported measures of alcohol intake for drink size and ethanol (EtOH) content have relied on single-point assessments.

methodsA prospective 28-day diary study investigated magnitudes of drink-EtOH adjustments and factors associated with these adjustments. Transdermal alcohol sensor (TAS) readings and prediction of alcohol-related problems by number of drinks versus EtOH-adjusted intake were used to validate drink-EtOH adjustments. Self-completed event diaries listed up to 4 beverage types and 4 drinking events/d. Eligible volunteers had ≥ weekly drinking and ≥3+ drinks per occasion with ≥26 reported days and pre- and postsummary measures (n = 220). Event reports included drink types, sizes, brands or spirits contents, venues, drinks consumed, and drinking duration.

resultsWine drinks averaged 1.19, beer 1.09, and spirits 1.54 U.S. standard drinks (14 g EtOH). Mean-adjusted alcohol intake was 22% larger using drink size and strength (brand/EtOH concentration) data. Adjusted drink levels were larger than "raw" drinks in all quantity ranges. Individual-level drink-EtOH adjustment ratios (EtOH adjusted/unadjusted amounts) averaged across all days drinking ranged from 0.73 to 3.33 (mean 1.22). Adjustment ratio was only marginally (and not significantly) positively related to usual quantity, frequency, and heavy drinking (all ps < 0.10), independent of gender, age, employment, and education, but those with lower incomes (both p < 0.01) drank stronger/bigger drinks. Controlling for raw number of drinks and other covariates, degree of adjustment independently predicted alcohol dependence symptoms (p < 0.01) and number of consequences (p < 0.05). In 30 respondents with sufficiently high-quality TAS readings, higher correlations (p = 0.04) were found between the adjusted versus the raw drinks/event and TAS areas under the curve.

conclusionsAbsent drink size and strength data, intake assessments are downward biased by at least 20%. Between-subject variation in typical drink content and pour sizes should be addressed in treatment and epidemiological research.

Indexed as

Medical RecordsSelf ReportAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesEthanolFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesYoung AdultEthanolAlcoholMeasurementSelf-ReportTransdermal Alcohol SensorValidity

Identifiers

PMID25581661
PMCPMC4293078
OpenAlexW2049004017

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.