ArticleCancers2024
Identification of Alcohol Use Prior to Major Cancer Surgery: Timeline Follow Back Interview Compared to Four Other Markers.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of screening and ultra-brief intervention for hazardous drinking in primary care: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe postoperative complication rate is 30-64% among patients undergoing muscle-invasive and recurrent high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer surgery. Preoperative risky alcohol use increases the risk. The aim was to evaluate the accuracy of markers for identifying preoperative risky alcohol.
methodsDiagnostic test sub-study of a randomized controlled trial (STOP-OP trial), based on a cohort of 94 patients scheduled for major bladder cancer surgery. Identification of risky alcohol use using Timeline Follow Back interviews (TLFB) were compared to the AUDIT-C questionnaire and three biomarkers: carbohydrate-deficient transferrin in plasma (P-CDT), phosphatidyl-ethanol in blood (B-PEth), and ethyl glucuronide in urine (U-EtG).
resultsThe correlation between TLFB and AUDIT-C was strong (ρ = 0.75), while it was moderate between TLFB and the biomarkers (ρ = 0.55-0.65). Overall, sensitivity ranged from 56 to 82% and specificity from 38 to 100%. B-PEth showed the lowest sensitivity at 56%, but the highest specificity of 100%. All tests had high positive predictive values (79-100%), but low negative predictive values (42-55%).
conclusionsDespite high positive predictive values, negative predictive values were weak compared to TLFB. For now, TLFB interviews seem preferable for preoperative identification of risky alcohol use.
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.