Jana Vitesnikova1, Michael Dinh2, Elizabeth Leonard3, Soufiane Boufous4, Katherine Conigrave5. 1. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: jvit3927@uni.sydney.edu.au. 2. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia; Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: dinh.mm@gmail.com. 3. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: elizabeth.leonard@sydney.edu.au. 4. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: soufiane@unsw.edu.au. 5. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia; Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: kate.conigrave@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alcohol use is an important contributor to injuries. Simple bedside tools to identify trauma patients with potentially harmful drinking may assist in brief intervention efforts in clinical practice. The objective of the study was to determine and compare the accuracy of alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) and an abbreviated version of this test, in the detection of hazardous drinking. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of admitted trauma patients at a single Australian major trauma centre. Eligible patients completed the AUDIT. AUDIT survey responses were scored in two ways, using the full form scale and secondly an abbreviated (AUDIT C) scale which uses only the first 3 questions. AUDIT and AUDIT-C scores were then evaluated with respect to the primary study measure; the detection of hazardous alcohol consumption based on a full alcohol consumption history. Sensitivities for each relevant score were calculated and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine test accuracy. RESULTS: During the study period, 523 trauma admissions were identified and of these 146 (28%) were screened. The optimum cut off scores for AUDIT and AUDIT-C were 8 and 5 respectively corresponding to sensitivities of 88% and 91% and both tests had excellent overall accuracy for the detection of hazardous alcohol consumption. There was no significant difference between AUDIT-C and AUDIT performance (p=0.395) (AUDIT-C AUROC 0.96 95%CI 0.93, 0.99). CONCLUSION: AUDIT-C appears to be a potentially useful screening tool for use trauma centres, but that further research with larger samples is required.
INTRODUCTION:Alcohol use is an important contributor to injuries. Simple bedside tools to identify traumapatients with potentially harmful drinking may assist in brief intervention efforts in clinical practice. The objective of the study was to determine and compare the accuracy of alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) and an abbreviated version of this test, in the detection of hazardous drinking. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of admitted traumapatients at a single Australian major trauma centre. Eligible patients completed the AUDIT. AUDIT survey responses were scored in two ways, using the full form scale and secondly an abbreviated (AUDIT C) scale which uses only the first 3 questions. AUDIT and AUDIT-C scores were then evaluated with respect to the primary study measure; the detection of hazardous alcohol consumption based on a full alcohol consumption history. Sensitivities for each relevant score were calculated and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine test accuracy. RESULTS: During the study period, 523 trauma admissions were identified and of these 146 (28%) were screened. The optimum cut off scores for AUDIT and AUDIT-C were 8 and 5 respectively corresponding to sensitivities of 88% and 91% and both tests had excellent overall accuracy for the detection of hazardous alcohol consumption. There was no significant difference between AUDIT-C and AUDIT performance (p=0.395) (AUDIT-C AUROC 0.96 95%CI 0.93, 0.99). CONCLUSION: AUDIT-C appears to be a potentially useful screening tool for use trauma centres, but that further research with larger samples is required.
Authors: Natasha M Simske; Trenton Rivera; Mary A Breslin; Sarah B Hendrickson; Megen Simpson; Mark Kalina; Vanessa P Ho; Heather A Vallier Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2020-01-21
Authors: Magnus Johansson; Anne H Berman; Kristina Sinadinovic; Philip Lindner; Ulric Hermansson; Sven Andréasson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: J Austin Lee; Eric O Ochola; Janet Sugut; Beatrice Ngila; Daniel K Ojuka; Michael J Mello; Adam R Aluisio Journal: Afr J Emerg Med Date: 2022-07-20
Authors: Christopher Sundström; Mikael Gajecki; Magnus Johansson; Matthijs Blankers; Kristina Sinadinovic; Erik Stenlund-Gens; Anne H Berman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Natalie A Johnson; Kypros Kypri; Joanna Latter; Patrick McElduff; John Attia; Richard Saitz; John B Saunders; Luke Wolfenden; Adrian Dunlop; Christopher Doran; Jim McCambridge Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2015-09-05
Authors: Randall Brown; Brienna Deyo; Chelsea Riley; Andrew Quanbeck; Joseph E Glass; Rebecca Turpin; Scott Hetzel; Christopher Nicholas; Maireni Cruz; Suresh Agarwal Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2017-12-04