Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2025
Effectiveness of screening and ultra-brief intervention for hazardous drinking in primary care: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 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.
- Implementation of evidence-based alcohol policies to reduce alcohol-related harm and liver disease to advance public health in Europe.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a doctor delivered screening and ultra-brief intervention (<1 minute) compared with simplified assessment only for reducing alcohol intake among patients with hazardous drinking in primary care.
designPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.
setting40 primary care clinics in Japan that did not provide routine screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking or treatment or self-help groups for alcohol dependency.
participants1133 outpatients aged 20-74 years with hazardous drinking (AUDIT-C (alcohol use disorders identification test-consumption) scores ≥5 for men and ≥4 for women). Clinic clusters were allocated to a study arm using a computer generated random sequence. Participants and staff who collected participant reported outcomes remained blinded to assignment.
interventionsPrimary care clinics were randomised to ultra-brief intervention (21 clinics, 531 patients) or simplified assessment only (19 clinics, 602 patients) groups. The intervention group comprised screening with AUDIT-C followed by brief oral advice and an alcohol information leaflet delivered in <1 minute. The control group comprised simplified assessment with AUDIT-C only.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was total alcohol consumption in the four weeks preceding the 24 week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included total alcohol consumption in the four weeks preceding the 12 week follow-up, and readiness to change drinking behaviour, measured at 12 and 24 weeks.
resultsAt 24 weeks, the difference in total alcohol consumption between the ultra-brief intervention group (1046.9 g/4 weeks (g/4wk), 95% confidence interval (CI) 918.3 to 1175.4) and control group (1019.0 g/4wk, 893.5 to 1144.6) was 27.8 g/4wk (-149.7 to 205.4, P=0.75), with a Hedges' g of 0.02 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.14). At 12 weeks, the difference in total alcohol consumption between the intervention group (1034.1 g/4wk, 919.6 to 1148.7) and control group (979.3 g/4wk, 866.1 to 1092.4) was 54.9 g/4wk (-104.1 to 213.9, P=0.49), with a Hedges' g of 0.04 (-0.08 to 0.16).
conclusionThis trial found no evidence to support the effectiveness of a doctor delivered ultra-brief intervention for hazardous drinking compared with simplified assessment only in primary care in Japan.
trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000051388.
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.