OBJECTIVE: The researchers evaluated the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the first 3 questions of the AUDIT (AUDIT-C), the third AUDIT question (AUDIT-3), and quantity-frequency questions for identifying hazardous drinkers in a large primary care sample. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. POPULATION: Patients waiting for care at 12 primary care sites in western Pennsylvania from October 1995 to December 1997. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values for the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3. RESULTS: A total of 13,438 patients were surveyed. Compared with a quantity-frequency definition of hazardous drinking (> or =16 drinks/week for men and > or =12 drinks/week for women), the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3 had areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUROC) of 0.940, 0.949, and 0.871, respectively. The AUROCs of the AUDIT and AUDIT-C were significantly different (P=.004). The AUROCs of the AUDIT-C (P<.001) and AUDIT (P <.001) were significantly larger than the AUDIT-3. When compared with a positive AUDIT score of 8 or higher, the AUDIT-C (score > or =3) and the AUDIT-3 (score > or =1) were 94.9% and 99.6% sensitive and 68.8% and 51.1% specific in detecting individuals as hazardous drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: In a large primary care sample, a 3-question version of the AUDIT identified hazardous drinkers as well as the full AUDIT when such drinkers were defined by quantity-frequency criterion. This version of the AUDIT may be useful as an initial screen for assessing hazardous drinking behavior.
OBJECTIVE: The researchers evaluated the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the first 3 questions of the AUDIT (AUDIT-C), the third AUDIT question (AUDIT-3), and quantity-frequency questions for identifying hazardous drinkers in a large primary care sample. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. POPULATION: Patients waiting for care at 12 primary care sites in western Pennsylvania from October 1995 to December 1997. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values for the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3. RESULTS: A total of 13,438 patients were surveyed. Compared with a quantity-frequency definition of hazardous drinking (> or =16 drinks/week for men and > or =12 drinks/week for women), the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3 had areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUROC) of 0.940, 0.949, and 0.871, respectively. The AUROCs of the AUDIT and AUDIT-C were significantly different (P=.004). The AUROCs of the AUDIT-C (P<.001) and AUDIT (P <.001) were significantly larger than the AUDIT-3. When compared with a positive AUDIT score of 8 or higher, the AUDIT-C (score > or =3) and the AUDIT-3 (score > or =1) were 94.9% and 99.6% sensitive and 68.8% and 51.1% specific in detecting individuals as hazardous drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: In a large primary care sample, a 3-question version of the AUDIT identified hazardous drinkers as well as the full AUDIT when such drinkers were defined by quantity-frequency criterion. This version of the AUDIT may be useful as an initial screen for assessing hazardous drinking behavior.
Authors: Rebecca K Papas; John E Sidle; Benson N Gakinya; Joyce B Baliddawa; Steve Martino; Michael M Mwaniki; Rogers Songole; Otieno E Omolo; Allan M Kamanda; David O Ayuku; Claris Ojwang; Willis D Owino-Ong'or; Magdalena Harrington; Kendall J Bryant; Kathleen M Carroll; Amy C Justice; Joseph W Hogan; Stephen A Maisto Journal: Addiction Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Adam J Gordon; Hillary V Kunins; Darius A Rastegar; Jeanette M Tetrault; Alexander Y Walley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Deborah A Dawson; Sharon M Smith; Tulshi D Saha; Anna D Rubinsky; Bridget F Grant Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Shawna N Smith; Daniel Almirall; Katherine Prenovost; Celeste Liebrecht; Julia Kyle; Daniel Eisenberg; Mark S Bauer; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Howard H Moffet; Nancy Adler; Dean Schillinger; Ameena T Ahmed; Barbara Laraia; Joe V Selby; Romain Neugebauer; Jennifer Y Liu; Melissa M Parker; Margaret Warton; Andrew J Karter Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Adam J Gordon; Lynn E Sullivan; Daniel P Alford; Julia H Arnsten; Marc N Gourevitch; Stefan G Kertesz; Hillary V Kunins; Joseph O Merrill; Jeffrey H Samet; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lauren Matukaitis Broyles; Adam J Gordon; Susan M Sereika; Christopher M Ryan; Judith A Erlen Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Laurel A Copeland; Alexander L Miller; Deborah E Welsh; John F McCarthy; John E Zeber; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Adeel A Butt; Kathleen McGinnis; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Stephen Crystal; Michael Simberkoff; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; David Leaf; Amy C Justice Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 4.177