Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30604290›Full record

ReviewPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2019

Comparative Effectiveness of Brief Alcohol Interventions for College Students: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis.

Emily Alden Hennessy, Emily E Tanner-Smith, Dimitris Mavridis, Sean P Grant

Abstract readComparative StudyNetwork Meta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Review in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Protective behavioral strategies underutilization mediates effect of a brief motivational intervention among socially anxious undergraduate drinkers.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2021
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Health screenings in college health centers: Variations in practice.Journal of American college health : J of ACH · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Emily Alden HennessyDepartment of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University, PMB 90, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA. Emily.hennessy@uconn.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5146-5823
Emily E Tanner-SmithDepartment of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University, PMB 90, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Dimitris MavridisDepartment of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, University Campus, 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Sean P GrantDepartment of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, 1050 Wishard Blvd, RG 6046, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.

Funding

A Meta-analysis of Brief Intervention Effects for Adolescents and Young AdultsR01AA020286 · NIAAA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI TANNER-SMITH, EMILY E. · 2011 to 2012
$527k
NIAAA NIH HHS 1R01AA020286-01A1NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA020286
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Late adolescence is a time of increased drinking, and alcohol plays a predominant role in college social experiences. Colleges seeking to prevent students' hazardous drinking may elect to implement brief alcohol interventions (BAIs). However, numerous manualized BAIs exist, so an important question remains regarding the comparative effectiveness of these different types of BAIs for college students. This study uses network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare seven manualized BAIs for reducing problematic alcohol use among college students. We systematically searched multiple sources for literature, and we screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. For the quantitative synthesis, we employed a random-effects frequentist NMA to determine the effectiveness of different BAIs compared to controls and estimated the relative effectiveness ranking of each BAI. A systematic literature search resulted in 52 included studies: On average, 58% of participants were male, 75% were binge drinkers, and 20% were fraternity/sorority-affiliated students. Consistency models demonstrated that BASICS was consistently effective in reducing students' problematic alcohol use (ES range: g = - 0.23, 95%CI [- 0.36, - 0.16] to g = - 0.36, 95% CI [- 0.55, - 0.18]), but AlcoholEDU (g = - 0.13, 95%CI [- 0.22, - 0.04]), e-CHUG (g = - 0.35, 95%CI [- 0.45, - 0.05]), and THRIVE (g = - 0.47, 95%CI [- 0.60, - 0.33]) were also effective for some outcomes. Intervention rankings indicated that BASICS, THRIVE, and AlcoholEDU hold the most promise for future trials. Several BAIs appear effective for college students. BASICS was the most effective but is resource intensive and may be better suited for higher risk students; THRIVE and e-CHUG are less resource intensive and show promise for universal prevention efforts.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingStudentsUniversitiesHumansBrief alcohol interventionCollege studentsNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID30604290
PMCPMC7456515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.