Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34750926›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2022

Indigenous Australian drinking risk: Comparing risk categorisations based on recall of recent drinking occasions to AUDIT-C screening in a representative sample.

James H Conigrave, Katherine M Conigrave, Scott Wilson, K S Kylie Lee

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

James H ConigraveFaculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8816-6229
Katherine M ConigraveFaculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6428-1441
Scott WilsonFaculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
K S Kylie LeeFaculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, Centre of Research Excellence in Indigenous Health and Alcohol, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5410-9464
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australians have identified alcohol consumption as an area of concern. Accurate screening tools are required to help detect and assist at-risk drinkers, and to provide accurate data to policy makers. The Finnish method (determining drinking patterns based on the last two to four drinking occasions), has been proposed as a culturally appropriate and effective screening tool for detecting Indigenous Australians at risk from alcohol consumption. While it has been found to be valid and acceptable for use with Indigenous Australians, the Finnish method has not been compared to the three-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) which is currently recommended by the Australian government for use in Aboriginal community-controlled health services.

methodsWe compared the performance of the AUDIT-C and Finnish method as screening tools for detecting harms experienced from alcohol in a representative, cross-sectional, sample of Indigenous Australians.

resultsAUDIT-C was substantially faster for participants to complete than the Finnish method. Metrics derived from both the AUDIT-C and Finnish method were similarly linked to the frequency of self-reported International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision dependence symptoms and harms. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsThe AUDIT-C is likely most appropriate for use in clinical settings due to its speed and ease of use. The Finnish method provides relatively detailed information about drinking and is better suited to population surveys.

Indexed as

AlcoholismAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSelf ReportAUDIT-Cdrinking riskFinnish methodGrog Survey AppIndigenous Australians

Identifiers

PMID34750926
PMCPMC9299218
OpenAlexW3211704614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.