You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1940-0640-9-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate E Delaney, Amy K Lee, Gwen T Lapham, Anna D Rubinsky, Laura J Chavez, Katharine A Bradley |
| Abstract |
The AUDIT-C is an extensively validated screen for unhealthy alcohol use (i.e. drinking above recommended limits or alcohol use disorder), which consists of three questions about alcohol consumption. AUDIT-C scores ≥4 points for men and ≥3 for women are considered positive screens based on US validation studies that compared the AUDIT-C to "gold standard" measures of unhealthy alcohol use from independent, detailed interviews. However, results of screening--positive or negative based on AUDIT-C scores--can be inconsistent with reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions. For example, individuals can screen positive based on the AUDIT-C score while reporting drinking below US recommended limits on the same AUDIT-C. Alternatively, they can screen negative based on the AUDIT-C score while reporting drinking above US recommended limits. Such inconsistencies could complicate interpretation of screening results, but it is unclear how often they occur in practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Librarian | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#456
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,136
of 322,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.