Deborah A Dawson1, Sharon M Smith, Tulshi D Saha, Anna D Rubinsky, Bridget F Grant. 1. Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, Division of Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. deborah.anne.dawson@gmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Under the proposed DSM-5 revision to the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), a substantial proportion of DSM-IV AUD cases will be lost or shifted in terms of severity, with some new cases added. Accordingly, the performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV AUD cannot be assumed to extend to DSM-5 AUD. The objective of this paper is to compare the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD. METHODS: Using a broad range of performance metrics, the AUDIT-C was tested and contrasted as a screener for DSM-IV AUD (any AUD, abuse and dependence) and DSM-5 AUD (any AUD, moderate AUD and severe AUD) in a representative sample of U.S. adults aged 21 and older and among past-year drinkers. RESULTS: Optimal AUDIT-C cutpoints were identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD: ≥4 for any AUD, ≥3 or ≥4 for abuse/moderate AUD and ≥4 or ≥5 for dependence/severe AUD. Screening performance was slightly better for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence but did not differ for other diagnoses. At optimal screening cutpoints, positive predictive values were slightly higher for DSM-5 overall AUD and moderate AUD than for their DSM-IV counterparts. Sensitivities were slightly higher for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence. Optimal screening cutpoints shifted upwards for past-year drinkers but continued to be identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should not face any major overhaul of their current screening procedures as a result of the DSM-5 revision and should benefit from fewer false positive screening results. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: Under the proposed DSM-5 revision to the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), a substantial proportion of DSM-IV AUD cases will be lost or shifted in terms of severity, with some new cases added. Accordingly, the performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV AUD cannot be assumed to extend to DSM-5 AUD. The objective of this paper is to compare the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD. METHODS: Using a broad range of performance metrics, the AUDIT-C was tested and contrasted as a screener for DSM-IV AUD (any AUD, abuse and dependence) and DSM-5 AUD (any AUD, moderate AUD and severe AUD) in a representative sample of U.S. adults aged 21 and older and among past-year drinkers. RESULTS: Optimal AUDIT-C cutpoints were identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD: ≥4 for any AUD, ≥3 or ≥4 for abuse/moderate AUD and ≥4 or ≥5 for dependence/severe AUD. Screening performance was slightly better for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence but did not differ for other diagnoses. At optimal screening cutpoints, positive predictive values were slightly higher for DSM-5 overall AUD and moderate AUD than for their DSM-IV counterparts. Sensitivities were slightly higher for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence. Optimal screening cutpoints shifted upwards for past-year drinkers but continued to be identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should not face any major overhaul of their current screening procedures as a result of the DSM-5 revision and should benefit from fewer false positive screening results. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: A J Gordon; S A Maisto; M McNeil; K L Kraemer; R L Conigliaro; M E Kelley; J Conigliaro Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Anna F DeBenedetti; Robert J Volk; Emily C Williams; Danielle Frank; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Isaac C Rhew; Charles B Fleming; Siny Tsang; Erin Horn; Rick Kosterman; Glen E Duncan Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Bryan Hartzler; Julia C Dombrowski; Jason R Williams; Heidi M Crane; Joseph J Eron; Elvin H Geng; Christopher Mathews; Kenneth H Mayer; Richard D Moore; Michael J Mugavero; Sonia Napravnik; Benigno Rodriguez; Dennis M Donovan Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2018-03
Authors: Bryan Hartzler; Julia C Dombrowski; Heidi M Crane; Joseph J Eron; Elvin H Geng; W Christopher Mathews; Kenneth H Mayer; Richard D Moore; Michael J Mugavero; Sonia Napravnik; Benigno Rodriguez; Dennis M Donovan Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-04
Authors: Susan E Collins; Andrew J Saxon; Mark H Duncan; Brian F Smart; Joseph O Merrill; Daniel K Malone; T Ron Jackson; Seema L Clifasefi; Jutta Joesch; Richard K Ries Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michael B Madson; Joshua W Schutts; Hallie R Jordan; Margo C Villarosa-Hurlocker; Robert B Whitley; Richard S Mohn Journal: Assessment Date: 2018-08-01
Authors: Adam E Barry; Michael L Stellefson; Anna K Piazza-Gardner; Beth H Chaney; Virginia Dodd Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 3.913