Trial reportAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2017
Two Brief Measures of Alcohol Use Produce Different Results: AUDIT-C and Quick Drinking Screen.
Trial report in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of screening and ultra-brief intervention for hazardous drinking in primary care: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Adapting and Implementing a Brief Intervention to Target Frequent Alcohol Use Among Persons with HIV in Vietnam.AIDS and behavior · 2021Trial
- Steatotic liver disease trajectory: A holistic EASL guidance on the multidisciplinary approach to screening and patient management.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Review
- Questionable generalizability of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption scoring warrants caution when used for outcome monitoring: Evidence from simulated and real-world trial data.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Article
- Lessons Learned in Digital Health Promotion: The Promise and Challenge of Contextual Behavioral Science Methodology in Valuing Intervention Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Behavioral activation is associated with post-disaster mental health: Secondary longitudinal analysis from a population-based study.Journal of clinical psychology · 2024Article
- Alcohol-Related Problems As Moderators of PTSD Symptom Change During Use of a Web-Based Intervention for Hazardous Drinking and PTSD.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2024Article
- Alcohol Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for Girls and Women.Alcohol research : current reviews · 2020Review
- Identifying the Intersection of Alcohol, Adherence and Sex in HIV Positive Men on ART Treatment in India Using an Adapted Timeline Followback Procedure.AIDS and behavior · 2017Article
- Validity of the AUDIT-C screen for at-risk drinking among students utilizing university primary care.Journal of American college health : J of ACHArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral psychometrically sound measures of alcohol use have been developed to assess drinking. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and its shorter counterpart the AUDIT-C, which contains the first 3 AUDIT questions, were developed by the World Health Organization and have become the preferred brief measures for screening and evaluating problem severity. This study compared the first 3 questions on the AUDIT with another psychometrically sound brief measure of alcohol use, the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS).
methodsData were obtained from a randomized controlled trial of a mail-based intervention promoting self-change with 472 alcohol abusers (n = 280, no prior alcohol treatment; n = 192, prior alcohol treatment). Participants' retrospective self-reports of alcohol consumption were collected using the QDS and the 3 AUDIT-C questions and compared. Although both measures contain similar questions (2 quantity-frequency and 1 binge drinking), they differ in 2 important ways: (i) temporal interval over which data are collected, and (ii) formatting of response options (i.e., a continuous number vs. categorical).
resultsIntraclass correlations for drinking variables were moderate to moderately high. A repeated-measures MANOVA using treatment condition and gender as variables revealed significant differences in absolute values between the 2 drinking measures with the QDS showing greater consumption on almost all variables. Participants' numerical answers on the QDS were compared to their categorical answers to the similar alcohol use questions on the AUDIT-C. The comparison revealed that participants' answers on the AUDIT-C were associated with extreme variability compared to their QDS answers. This variability suggests the AUDIT-C would be unreliable as a quantitative measure of alcohol consumption.
conclusionsThe differences between the 3 alcohol use questions on the AUDIT-C and the same questions on the QDS may reflect the imprecision of the AUDIT-C's drinking response categories. Results suggest that the QDS can be used to identify risky drinking and to provide a more informative characterization of a drinker's alcohol consumption than that provided by the AUDIT-C.
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.