Anne Moehring1, Hans-Juergen Rumpf2, Ulfert Hapke3, Gallus Bischof2, Ulrich John4, Christian Meyer4. 1. University Medicine Greifswald, Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Partner site Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. Electronic address: anne.moehring@med.uni-greifswald.de. 2. University of Luebeck, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Luebeck, Germany. 3. Robert Koch Institute, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Mental Health Unit, D-13302 Berlin, Germany. 4. University Medicine Greifswald, Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, D-17475 Greifswald, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Partner site Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is an established screening questionnaire for the detection of at-risk drinking and possible alcohol use disorders (AUD) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - fourth edition (DSM-IV). But there are still no comparable results on the diagnostic performance regarding the new criteria for AUD in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - fifth edition (DSM-5), especially taking account of possible gender differences. We evaluated the performance of the full AUDIT and the consumption questions (AUDIT-C) in screening for DSM-5 AUD and at-risk drinking. METHOD: Data from the study Transitions in Alcohol Consumption and Smoking (TACOS) is used to analyze the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity of the AUDIT and the AUDIT-C in the general population of northern Germany. DSM-5 AUD and at-risk drinking were assessed with the Munich-Composite Diagnostic Interview and used as gold standards. RESULTS: The best balance between sensitivity and specificity is achieved at a score of 5 for men and 4 for women. High severity, according to DSM-5, were associated with higher cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: Both AUDIT versions are accurate in the screening for DSM-5 AUD. Since the proposed cut-offs do not differ from the optimal screening cut-offs for DSM-IV disorders, current screening procedures should not face major changes.
OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is an established screening questionnaire for the detection of at-risk drinking and possible alcohol use disorders (AUD) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - fourth edition (DSM-IV). But there are still no comparable results on the diagnostic performance regarding the new criteria for AUD in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - fifth edition (DSM-5), especially taking account of possible gender differences. We evaluated the performance of the full AUDIT and the consumption questions (AUDIT-C) in screening for DSM-5 AUD and at-risk drinking. METHOD: Data from the study Transitions in Alcohol Consumption and Smoking (TACOS) is used to analyze the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity of the AUDIT and the AUDIT-C in the general population of northern Germany. DSM-5 AUD and at-risk drinking were assessed with the Munich-Composite Diagnostic Interview and used as gold standards. RESULTS: The best balance between sensitivity and specificity is achieved at a score of 5 for men and 4 for women. High severity, according to DSM-5, were associated with higher cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: Both AUDIT versions are accurate in the screening for DSM-5 AUD. Since the proposed cut-offs do not differ from the optimal screening cut-offs for DSM-IV disorders, current screening procedures should not face major changes.
Authors: Rupa Jose; Matthew Matero; Garrick Sherman; Brenda Curtis; Salvatore Giorgi; Hansen Andrew Schwartz; Lyle H Ungar Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Maria J E Schouten; Jack J M Dekker; Tamara Q de Bruijn; David D Ebert; Lisanne M Koomen; Sjoerd L A Kosterman; Heleen Riper; Michael P Schaub; Anna E Goudriaan; Matthijs Blankers Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Laura Ballester; Itxaso Alayo; Gemma Vilagut; José Almenara; Ana Isabel Cebrià; Enrique Echeburúa; Andrea Gabilondo; Margalida Gili; Carolina Lagares; José A Piqueras; Miquel Roca; Victoria Soto-Sanz; Maria Jesús Blasco; Pere Castellví; Carlos G Forero; Philippe Mortier; Jordi Alonso Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lisa Bornscheuer; Andreas Lundin; Yvonne Forsell; Catharina Lavebratt; Philippe A Melas Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 4.379