Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27940696›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2016

Screening in Primary Care: What Is the Best Way to Identify At-Risk Youth for Substance Use?

Elizabeth J D'Amico, Layla Parast, Lisa S Meredith, Brett A Ewing, William G Shadel, Bradley D Stein

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Observational
  11. Adolescent Substance Use Screening in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Brief Underage Alcohol Use Screener Scores Predict Health Risk Behaviors.The Journal of school nursing : the official publication of the National Association of School Nurses · 2021
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth J D'AmicoRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; and damico@rand.org.
Layla ParastRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; and.
Lisa S MeredithRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; and.
Brett A EwingRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; and.
William G ShadelRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bradley D SteinRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
RAND Corporation · US

Funding

Alcohol Screening in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Adolescents in Primary CareR01AA021786 · NIAAA · RAND CORPORATION · PI D'AMICO, ELIZABETH J. · 2012 to 2016
$3.3M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA021786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is important to improve primary care providers' capability to identify youth at risk for alcohol and other drug use. To our knowledge, this is the first study to use Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria to compare screeners for youth for both alcohol and marijuana, given that these are the most frequently used substances by this age group.

methodsWe compared the psychometric performance of 4 screeners: the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Screening Guide (NIAAA SG), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, the Car-Relax-Alone-Forget-Family and Friends-Trouble (CRAFFT) screener, and the Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire Problem Severity Scale (PESQ-PS) in identifying alcohol and marijuana use outcomes. Youth age 12 through 18 (N = 1573; 27% black, 51% Hispanic) were screened with the NIAAA SG, followed by a Web survey that included the other screeners and outcomes.

resultsSensitivity for alcohol outcomes indicated that the NIAAA SG (0.87) did not perform as well as the CRAFFT (0.97) or PESQ-PS (0.97) screeners but performed better than the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (0.70). The pattern for sensitivity across screeners for marijuana outcomes was similar.

conclusionsAn important tradeoff in primary care settings is precision versus practicality. Because of brevity and focus on frequency of drinking, the NIAAA SG offers ease of administration and is good at identifying youth with probably problematic drinking levels. The PESQ-PS and the CRAFFT correctly identify more at-risk youth for alcohol and marijuana than the NIAAA SG. Future work is needed to elucidate how to efficiently and accurately identify at-risk youth in the primary care setting, including determining the best cutoff points to use to increase sensitivity.

Indexed as

AdolescentAlcohol DrinkingChildDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMarijuana SmokingMass ScreeningPredictive Value of TestsPrimary Health CarePsychometricsSensitivity and SpecificitySubstance Abuse DetectionSubstance-Related DisordersSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27940696
PMCPMC5127067
OpenAlexW2550864124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.