SynthesisAlcohol, clinical & experimental research2025
Assessment of agitation and aggression in inpatients with alcohol use disorder: A systematic review of informant-based scales.
Synthesis in Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessment of agitation and aggression in inpatients with alcohol use disorder: A systematic review of informant-based scales.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025Pooled it
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
Abstract
backgroundAgitation and aggression are commonly observed in inpatients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Adequate assessment is essential to provide appropriate care for these behaviors. To date, a systematic evaluation of existing measurement scales for use in AUD is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of existing informant-based scales to assess agitation and/or aggression and to evaluate their psychometric properties and applicability in people with AUD.
methodsExisting reviews on the assessment of agitation and/or aggression in psychiatric populations and neurocognitive disorders were searched to identify existing instruments to assess agitation and aggression. Next, for each scale, systematic literature searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO to evaluate the use in AUD and to identify psychometric studies using a validated methodological search filter. We applied the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) to evaluate the psychometric properties.
resultsWe included 20 unique scales for which we identified 86 studies reporting on psychometric properties and 65 studies that used any of these scales in AUD. To assess agitation and aggression retrospectively, the Rating Scale for Aggressive Behavior in the Elderly (RAGE) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) have the best psychometric qualities. The Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS) showed the best psychometric properties of all scales that assess agitation and aggression during a prospective observation period. To assess agitation and aggression following an incident, the Overt Aggression Scale (OAS) has the best psychometric properties. Sixty-five studies used any of the included scales to assess agitation and/or aggression in individuals with AUD, with the MOAS and OAS as the most commonly used scales within the AUD population.
conclusionsThis review is the first to provide an overview of existing scales to assess agitation and aggression together with their psychometric properties and use in AUD. Findings guide clinicians and researchers to select the most appropriate instruments to improve the diagnosis and treatment of agitation and aggression in AUD.
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.