ArticleJournal of addiction medicine
Comparing the Performance of World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module in Adolescents to Diagnoses Made by Pediatric Addiction Medicine Specialists.
Article in Journal of addiction medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module (WMH-CIDI-SAM) is commonly used as a criterion standard measure for substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses, although the accuracy of this tool when used with adolescents is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement between SUD diagnoses for adolescents made by WMH-CIDI-SAM and those made by specialists based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) ( DSM-5 ) SUD criteria during an SUD evaluation.
methodsAdolescents aged 12 to 17 years presenting to an outpatient SUD program for youth were administered the WMH-CIDI-SAM by a trained research assistant, and results were compared with diagnoses made by experienced clinicians based on DSM-5 SUD criteria during an initial SUD evaluation. Chance-corrected concordance was estimated using the κ coefficient for the comparisons.
resultsThe level of concordance between the WMH-CIDI-SAM interview and the clinician diagnosis based on DSM-5 SUD criteria were fair to moderate for alcohol use disorder and tobacco use disorder and poor for cannabis use disorder. Three of 11 WMH-CIDI-SAM item constructs showed poor concordance with clinician diagnosis.
conclusionsInterpreting the diagnostic criteria for SUDs, particularly cannabis use disorders, is nuanced, and the meaning of the criteria may be misunderstood by adolescents. Further evaluation of the performance of the WMH-CIDI-SAM diagnostic interview for identifying cannabis use disorders in adolescents is needed.
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.