Paul Toner1, Jan R Böhnke2, Phil Andersen3, Jim McCambridge4. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, England, UK; School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5BN, Northern Ireland, UK. Electronic address: p.toner@qub.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, England, UK; Dundee Centre for Health and Related Research, School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: j.r.boehnke@dundee.ac.uk. 3. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, England, UK. Electronic address: phil.andersen@york.ac.uk. 4. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, England, UK. Electronic address: jim.mccambridge@york.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25. METHODS: Six electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Thirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies. CONCLUSIONS: The volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people's alcohol-related problems.
BACKGROUND: There is a strong rationale for clinicians to identify risky drinking among young people given the harms caused by alcohol. This systematic review evaluates the quality of evidence in the validation literature on alcohol screening and assessment measures for young people under 25. METHODS: Six electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; SSCI; HMIC; ADAI) were searched in May 2016 for published and grey literature. Full-text reports published in English since 1980 were included if they aimed to validate an alcohol screening or assessment measure in comparison with a previously validated alcohol measure. Risk of bias was assessed in studies surpassing a priori quality thresholds for predictive validity, internal and test-retest reliability using COSMIN and QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Thirty nine reports comprising 135 discrete validation studies were included. Summary estimates indicated that the screening instruments performed well - AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.93); sensitivity 0.98 (0.95 to 0.99); specificity 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82). Noting a paucity of validation evidence for existing assessment instruments, aggregated reliability estimates suggest a reliability of 0.81 (0.78 to 0.83) adjusted for 10 items. Risk of bias was high for both types of studies. CONCLUSIONS: The volume and quality of available evidence are superior for screening measures. It is recommended that clinicians use alcohol frequency or quantity items if asking a single question. If there is an opportunity to ask more questions either the 3-item AUDIT-C or the 10-item AUDIT are recommended. There is a need to develop new instruments to assess young people's alcohol-related problems.
Authors: Ofir Livne; Richard Feinn; Justin Knox; Emily E Hartwell; Joel Gelernter; Deborah S Hasin; Henry R Kranzler Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Alice Yu; Alexandra B Cooke; Patrick Scheffler; Robert J Doonan; Stella S Daskalopoulou Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: A Cochrane; A Booth; I Walker; S Morgan; A Mitchell; M Barlow-Pay; C Hewitt; B Taylor; C Chapman; J Raftery; J Fleming; D Torgerson; J Parkes Journal: Trials Date: 2021-12-19 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Nneka Emenyonu; Allen Kekibiina; Sarah Woolf-King; Catherine Kyampire; Robin Fatch; Carol Dawson-Rose; Winnie Muyindike; Judith Hahn Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-09-01