Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32183161›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

The Assessment of Overall Hangover Severity.

Joris C Verster, Aurora J A E van de Loo, Sarah Benson, Andrew Scholey, Ann-Kathrin Stock

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Alcohol Consumption on the Heaviest Drinking Occasion and Hangovers during the First Dutch COVID-19 Lockdown.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Joris C VersterDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6455-2096
Aurora J A E van de LooDivision of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0016-9151
Sarah BensonCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8626-0521
Andrew ScholeyCentre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia.
Ann-Kathrin StockCognitive Neurophysiology, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7113-4020
Swinburne University of Technology · AUUtrecht University · NLTechnische Universität Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to critically evaluate and compare the different methods to assess overall hangover severity. Currently, there are three multi-item hangover scales that are commonly used for this purpose. All of them comprise a number of hangover symptoms for which an average score is calculated. These scales were compared to a single, 1-item scale assessing overall hangover severity. The results showed that the hangover symptom scales significantly underestimate (subjective) hangover severity, as assessed with a 1-item overall hangover severity scale. A possible reason for this could be that overall hangover severity varies, depending on the frequency of occurrence of individual symptoms included in the respective scale. In contrast, it can be assumed that, when completing a 1-item overall hangover scale, the rating includes all possible hangover symptoms and their impact on cognitive and physical functioning and mood, thus better reflecting the actually experienced hangover severity. On the other hand, solely relying on hangover symptom scales may yield false positives in subjects who report not having a hangover. When the average symptom score is greater than zero, this may lead to non-hungover subjects being categorized as having a hangover, as many of the somatic and psychological hangover symptoms may also be experienced without consuming alcohol (e.g., having a headache). Taken together, the current analyses suggest that a 1-item overall hangover score is superior to hangover symptom scales in accurately assessing overall hangover severity. We therefore recommend using a 1-item overall hangover rating as primary endpoint in future hangover studies that aim to assess overall hangover severity.

Indexed as

alcoholhangovermeasurementscaleseveritysingle item assessmentsymptoms

Identifiers

PMID32183161
PMCPMC7141364
OpenAlexW3011265430

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.