ArticlePloS one2024
A short version of the Alcohol Consumption Consequences Evaluation Scale (ACCE10).
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A brief version of the Alcohol Consumption Consequences Evaluation Scale (ACCE) [38] was developed to promptly detect possible risks related to alcohol consumption, such as Binge Drinking (BD), in university students. Using the "snowball" method, a sample of 595 students aged 18 to 20 (65.4% women) from the University of Valencia (Spain) was obtained during the 2019-2020 academic year. Items with the highest values of the discrimination parameter in the original version (ACCE) were selected and the Rasch model was applied. To verify the usefulness of this version, ROC analyses were conducted separately for men and women using the Audit score as the criterion. In the overall sample, the analysis had an area of 0.812 (SE = 0.018). In men, the area was 0.796 (SE = 0.032) and for women, it was 0.823 (SE = 0.021). In addition, a logistic regression analysis was performed, using a cut-off point of 3 based on the ROC analysis, to assess the utility of this version in classifying BD and non-BD. The odds ratio was 3.812 (p = 0.000), correctly classifying 89.2% of the young people and indicating that the probability of engaging in BD is 3.8 times higher for individuals obtaining more than 3 points on this scale. This result confirms the usefulness of this brief version (ACCE10) as a screening tool for early intervention, especially in clinical or university settings, since it allows young people to be situated within a range of severity according to their consumption patterns. Furthermore, it may help stop the progression of the addictive process, create awareness of the need for change, and facilitate access to the most suitable interventions.
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.