ArticleAddictive behaviors reports2020
Sensitivity and specificity of a commercial urinary ethyl glucuronide (ETG) test in heavy drinkers.
Article in Addictive behaviors reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enrollment, Retention, and Adherence in a Fully Remote Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Alcohol Abstinence.Circulation. Population health and outcomes · 2026Article
- Endpoints for Pharmacotherapy Trials for Alcohol Use Disorder.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo advance the use of alcohol metabolites as biomarkers in the context of alcohol research, the present study tested the sensitivity and specificity of a commercially available urinary ethyl glucuronide (uEtG) test (DrugConfirm Advanced 80hr EtG) in a clinical research context.
methodsA community sample of heavy drinkers (N = 68) completed the 30-day Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) interview and provided a urine sample for uEtG analysis. Analyses of sensitivity and specificity of the uEtG assay were conducted using the following outcomes: (a) past day drinking, (b) past day binge drinking (defined as ≥4 drinks for women and ≥5 drinks for men), (c) past 3-day drinking, and (d) past 3-day binge drinking.
resultsThe majority of participants reported past-3-day drinking (80.9%) and a sizeable minority reported past day drinking (33.8%). While uEtG-based detection of past day drinking and binge drinking was acceptable (sensitivity = 73.91%, and 83.33%; specificity = 80.00% and 66.13%, respectively), detection of any drinking and binge drinking in the past 3 days was poor (sensitivity and specificity of 43.64% and 84.62%, and 39.39% and 62.86%, respectively).
conclusionsThis study contributes to the mixed findings on the validity of EtG tests, which suggest that commercial uEtG tests with conservative detection thresholds are not a reliable alcohol biomarker without corroborating self-report data. Lower detection thresholds are recommended when using uEtG as an alcohol biomarker. Efforts to reach acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity with commercial assays hold potential to advance the measurement of alcohol intake, overcoming the pitfalls of self-report data.
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.