Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25799590›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3: drinking patterns and screening for harmful, hazardous and dependent drinking in Katutura, Namibia.

Puja Seth, Mary Glenshaw, Jennifer H F Sabatier, René Adams, Verona Du Preez, Nickolas DeLuca, Naomi Bock

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Puja SethDivision of Global HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Mary GlenshawDivision of Global HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Jennifer H F SabatierDivision of Global HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
René AdamsMinistry of Health and Social Services, Windhoek, Namibia.
Verona Du PreezMinistry of Health and Social Services, Windhoek, Namibia.
Nickolas DeLucaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Windhoek, Namibia.
Naomi BockDivision of Global HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USMinistry of Health and Social Services · NA

Funding

PS10-1096, NAMIBIA, BUILDING HUMAN RESOURCES CAPACITY WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICU2GPS002722 · PS · POTENTIA NAMIBIA RECRUITMENT CONSULTANCY · PI DENNIS, CRAIG · 2010 to 2016
$42.0M
NCHHSTP CDC HHS PS002722PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe alcohol drinking patterns among participants in Katutura, Namibia, and to evaluate brief versions of the AUDIT against the full AUDIT to determine their effectiveness in detecting harmful drinking.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in four constituencies and 639 participants, 18 years or older, completed a sociodemographic survey and the AUDIT. The effectiveness of the AUDIT-C (first three questions) and the AUDIT-3 (third question) was compared to the full AUDIT.

resultsApproximately 40% were identified as harmful, hazardous or likely dependent drinkers, with men having a higher likelihood than women (57.2% vs. 31.0%, p<.0001). Approximately 32% reported making and/or selling alcohol from home. The AUDIT-C performed best at a cutoff ≥ 3, better in men (sensitivity: 99.3%, specificity: 77.8%) than women (sensitivity: 91.7%, specificity: 77.4%). The AUDIT-3 performed poorly (maximum sensitivity: < 90%, maximum specificity: <51%). According to AUROC, the AUDIT-C performed better than the AUDIT-3.

conclusionsA large proportion of participants met criteria for alcohol misuse, indicating a need for screening and referral for further evaluation and intervention. The AUDIT-C was almost as effective as the full AUDIT and may be easier to implement in clinical settings as a routine screening tool in resource-limited settings because of its brevity.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlcohol DrinkingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNamibiaRiskYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25799590
PMCPMC4370519
OpenAlexW2068575066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.