ArticleDrug and alcohol review2016
Diagnosis-based emergency department alcohol harm surveillance: What can it tell us about acute alcohol harms at the population level?
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Signal detection of substance-related emergency department visits during UEFA EURO 2024 in Germany: enhancing public health surveillance for future mass gatherings.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The Use and Structure of Emergency Nurses' Triage Narrative Data: Scoping Review.JMIR nursing · 2023Article
- Comparison of data sources on alcohol problems: An exploratory exercise using surveys vs. national healthcare registers.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2021Article
- Diagnosis-based emergency department alcohol harm surveillance: What can it tell us about acute alcohol harms at the population level?Drug and alcohol review · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsAcute harm from heavy drinking episodes is an increasing focus of public health policy, but capturing timely data on acute harms in the population is challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the precision of readily available administrative emergency department (ED) data in public health surveillance of acute alcohol harms. DESIGN AND
methodsWe selected a random sample of 1000 ED presentations assigned an ED diagnosis code for alcohol harms (the 'alcohol syndrome') in the New South Wales, Australia, automatic syndromic surveillance system. The sample was selected from 68 public hospitals during 2014. Nursing triage free-text fields were independently reviewed to confirm alcohol consumption and classify each presentation into either an 'acute' or 'chronic' harm. Positive predictive value (PPV) for acute harm was calculated, and predictors of acute harm presentations were estimated using logistic regression.
resultsThe PPV of the alcohol syndrome for acute alcohol harm was 53.5%. Independent predictors of acute harm were ambulance arrival [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-4.7], younger age (12-24 vs. 25-39 years: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.2-5.3), not being admitted (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.2) and arriving between 10 pm and 5.59 am (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5-2.8). PPV among 12 to 24-year-olds was 82%. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe alcohol syndrome provides moderate precision as an indicator of acute alcohol harms presenting to the ED. Precision for monitoring acute harm in the population is improved by filtering the syndrome by the strongest independent predictors of acute alcohol harm presentations. [Whitlam G, Dinh M, Rodgers C, Muscatello DJ, McGuire R, Ryan T, Thackway S. Diagnosis-based emergency department alcohol harm surveillance: What can it tell us about acute alcohol harms at the population level? Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:693-701].
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.