ArticleAlcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire)2015
Assessing the Validity of Participant-Derived Compared to Staff-Derived Values to Compute a Binge Score.
Article in Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do Executive Functions Predict Binge-Drinking Patterns? Evidence from a Longitudinal Study in Young Adulthood.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study examined the validity of two methods of classifying binge drinkers.
methodsAdult drinkers (n = 166) completed the Alcohol Use Questionnaire (AUQ) and a Timeline Followback (TLFB) interview to characterize drinking during the past 28 days. Using Townshend and Duka's (2005) recommendations, answers on three AUQ items (average drinks per hour, number of times drunk within the prior 6 months and percentage of times drunk when drinking) were used to derive a binge score that was then used to classify drinkers as Binge, Non-Binge and Unclassifiable. Two methods for calculating binge scores were compared: (a) Participant-derived, using participants' answers on the 3 AUQ items; and (b) Staff-derived, staff used TLFB interview information to answer the 3 AUQ items. Additionally, Participant- and Staff-derived classifications were used to predict future drinking behaviors assessed by a second TLFB interview.
resultsParticipant- and Staff-derived binge scores had a low concordance rate. Staff-derived classifications were better than Participant-derived classifications at predicting future binge drinking behavior and identifying group differences in drinking behavior reported during the second TLFB interview (average drinks per hour, number of times drunk within the prior 6 months, and percentage of times drunk when drinking).
conclusionsClassifying drinkers using staff-guided TLFB interview methods instead of self-reported participant generalizations of typical drinking habits better relates to real-world drinking. Classification schemes that rely on dichotomous categorization of drinkers (Binge vs. Non-Binge) may be missing individuals who engage in harmful patterns of drinking. A continuous scale or index characterizing problematic drinking may be more useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.