↓ Skip to main content

Inconsistencies between alcohol screening results based on AUDIT-C scores and reported drinking on the AUDIT-C questions: prevalence in two US national samples

Overview of attention for article published in Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 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 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 25%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Librarian 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Psychology 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 23%

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
#2,015,184
of 3,631,265 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#53
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,582
of 110,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,631,265 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 110,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.