Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31805923›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Inaccuracies in survey reporting of alcohol consumption.

Conor Gilligan, Kristen G Anderson, Benjamin O Ladd, Yun Ming Yong, Michael David

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Rural-urban differences in substance use during pregnancy.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Phosphate level changes in oral cancer patients - recognizing the risk for refeeding syndrome.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Conor GilliganUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive Callaghan, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia. Conor.Gilligan@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5493-4309
Kristen G AndersonReed College, 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd., Portland, Oregon, 97202, USA.
Benjamin O LaddDepartment of Psychology, Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Ave, Vancouver, WA, 98686, Canada.
Yun Ming YongUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive Callaghan, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Michael DavidUniversity of Newcastle, School of Medicine and Public Health, University Drive Callaghan, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlcohol consumption estimates in public health predominantly rely on self-reported survey data which is likely to underestimate consumption volume. Surveys tend to ask specifically about standard drinks and provide a definition or guide in an effort to gather accurate estimates. This study aimed to investigate whether the inclusion of the term standard drinks with pictorial guide is associated with an adjustment in self-reported alcohol volume.

methodsA web-based survey was administered with AUDIT-C questions repeated at the beginning and end of the survey with and without the standard drink term and guide. The order in which respondents were presented with the different question types was randomised. Two cohorts of university/college students in NSW Australia (n = 122) and the US Pacific Northwest (n = 285) completed the survey online.

resultsAustralian students did not adjust their responses to questions with and without the standard drink term and pictorial guide. The US students were more likely to adjust their responses based on the detail of the question asked. Those US students who drank more frequently and in greater volume were less likely to adjust/apply a conversion to their consumption.

conclusionsThis study supports previous findings of the inaccuracy of alcohol consumption volume in surveys, but also demonstrates that an assumption of underestimation cannot be applied to all individual reports of consumption. Using additional questions to better understand drink types and serving sizes is a potential approach to enable accurate calculation of underestimation in survey data.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsStudentsUnited StatesUniversitiesYoung AdultAlcoholMeasuresStandard drinkSurveysUnderestimation

Identifiers

PMID31805923
PMCPMC6896737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.