ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine2018
Cut-off points for screening at-risk drinking by AUDIT-C Korean version at emergency department.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Review
- Prevalence and Comorbidities of Adult Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder in a Community Sample from Korea.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023Article
- Postnatal depression and its social-cultural influences among adolescent mothers: A cross sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Associations between Gender, Alcohol Use and Negative Consequences among Korean College Students: A National Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Self-reported campus alcohol policy and college alcohol consumption: a multilevel analysis of 4592 Korean students from 82 colleges.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2020Article
- Identifying alcohol problems among suicide attempters visiting the emergency department.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo reduce problems caused by alcohol drinking, it is necessary to identify those with 'at-risk drinking' behavior to maximize therapeutic access or intervention. To this end, we sought to determine the cut-off point for screening of at-risk drinking by the Korean version of the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe obtained data from the scientific research project of "the supervision of the Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDCP)" in 2010. Injured patients over an 18-year-of age who visited an emergency department of an academic tertiary hospital from May to September 2010 were recruited to perform the AUDIT. The total number of patients who underwent the screening test was 640, 12.7% of the entire patients studied. Among them, 375 patients (58.4%) were men, and 265 patients (41.4%) were women. At-risk drinking was diagnosed based on the AUDIT total score and the cut-off points of the AUDIT-C were determined.
resultsCut-off points were 5 for men [Area Under the Receiver Operation Characteristic (AUROC) 0.956], 4 for women (AUROC 0.966), and 4 in elders >65-year-of age (AUROC 0.972).
conclusionThis study is the first research about the cut-off points of Korean version of AUDIT-C for patients including women and elders to screen for at-risk drinking in South Korea. AUDIT-C is a useful and accurate tool to screen patients for at-risk drinking.
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.