ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025
Diagnostic validity of drinking behaviour for identifying alcohol use disorder: Findings from a representative sample of community adults and an inpatient clinical sample.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic validity of drinking behaviour for identifying alcohol use disorder: Findings from a representative sample of community adults and an inpatient clinical sample.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAlcohol consumption is an inherent feature of alcohol use disorder (AUD), and drinking patterns may be diagnostically informative. This study had three aims: (1) to examine the classification accuracy of several individually analysed drinking behavior measures in a large sample of US community adults; (2) to extend the findings to an adult clinical sample; and (3) to examine potential sex differences.
designIn cross-sectional epidemiological and clinical datasets, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate diagnostic classification using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). SETTING AND
participantsTwo samples were examined: a large random sample of US community adults who reported past-year drinking (n = 25 773, AUD = 20%) and a clinical sample from a Canadian inpatient addiction treatment centre (n = 1341, AUD = 82%). MEASUREMENTS: Classifiers included measures of quantity/frequency (e.g. drinks/drinking day, largest drinks/drinking day, number of drinking days and heavy drinking frequency). The clinical criterion (reference standard) was AUD diagnostic status per structured clinical interview (community sample) or a symptom checklist (clinical sample).
findingsAll drinking indicators were statistically significant classifiers of AUD (AUCs = 0.60-0.92, Ps<0.0001). Heavy drinking frequency indicators performed optimally in both the community (AUCs = 0.78-0.87; accuracy = 0.72-0.80) and clinical (AUCs = 0.85-0.92; accuracy = 0.77-0.89) samples. Collectively, the most discriminating drinking behaviours were number of heavy drinking episodes and frequency of exceeding drinking low-risk guidelines. No substantive sex differences were observed across drinking metrics.
conclusionsQuantitative drinking indices appear to perform well at classifying alcohol use disorder (AUD) in both a large community adult and inpatient sample, robustly identifying AUD at rates much better than chance and above accepted clinical classification benchmarks, with limited differences by sex. These findings broadly support the potential clinical utility of quantitative drinking indicators in routine patient assessment.
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.