↓ Skip to main content

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption (AUDIT-C) is more useful than pre-existing laboratory tests for predicting hazardous drinking: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption (AUDIT-C) is more useful than pre-existing laboratory tests for predicting hazardous drinking: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3053-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideki Fujii, Naoki Nishimoto, Seiko Yamaguchi, Osamu Kurai, Masato Miyano, Wataru Ueda, Hiroko Oba, Tetsuya Aoki, Norifumi Kawada, Kiyotaka Okawa

Abstract

It is important to screen for alcohol consumption and drinking customs in a standardized manner. The aim of this study was 1) to investigate whether the AUDIT score is useful for predicting hazardous drinking using optimal cutoff scores and 2) to use multivariate analysis to evaluate whether the AUDIT score was more useful than pre-existing laboratory tests for predicting hazardous drinking. A cross-sectional study using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) was conducted in 334 outpatients who consulted our internal medicine department. The patients completed self-reported questionnaires and underwent a diagnostic interview, physical examination, and laboratory testing. Forty (23 %) male patients reported daily alcohol consumption ≥ 40 g, and 16 (10 %) female patients reported consumption ≥ 20 g. The optimal cutoff values of hazardous drinking were calculated using a 10-fold cross validation, resulting in an optimal AUDIT score cutoff of 8.2, with a sensitivity of 95.5 %, specificity of 87.0 %, false positive rate of 13.0 %, false negative rate of 4.5 %, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Multivariate analysis revealed that the most popular short version of the AUDIT consisting solely of its three consumption items (AUDIT-C) and patient sex were significantly associated with hazardous drinking. The aspartate transaminase (AST)/alanine transaminase (ALT) ratio and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) were weakly significant. This study showed that the AUDIT score and particularly the AUDIT-C score were more useful than the AST/ALT ratio and MCV for predicting hazardous drinking.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 29%
Psychology 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 20%

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 14 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,986,079
of 7,695,064 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,861
of 6,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,379
of 269,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#140
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,695,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 269,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.