Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39953621›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2025

Validation of the alcohol use disorders identification test in a Danish hospital setting.

Peter Næsborg Schøler, Max Benjamin Andersen, Kjeld Andersen, Ulrik Becker, Maja Thiele, Anette Søgaard Nielsen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Peter Næsborg SchølerUnit for Clinical Alcohol Research, Research Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. pscholer@health.sdu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1959-3251
Max Benjamin AndersenUnit for Clinical Alcohol Research, Research Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9263-3427
Kjeld AndersenUnit for Clinical Alcohol Research, Research Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0456-5634
Ulrik BeckerNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1678-7771
Maja ThieleCenter for Liver Research, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1854-1924
Anette Søgaard NielsenUnit for Clinical Alcohol Research, Research Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8569-4165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly identification of potential alcohol-problems is central for timely intervention and treatment referral. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) serve as globally recognized and validated screening tools for this purpose. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic validity of internationally recommended AUDIT cut-off scores ≥ 8, ≥16, ≥ 20, and AUDIT-C cut-off scores ≥ 4, ≥5 using the Danish language versions of questionnaires in a hospital setting.

methodsQuestionnaire data were collected from 2/15/2023, to 4/27/2023 at the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. We tested the World Health Organization's recommended AUDIT cut-offs: ≥8 for hazardous use, ≥ 16 suggestive of dependence, ≥ 20 high likelihood of dependence, along with AUDIT-C ≥ 4 and ≥ 5 using the following reference standard: Danish low-risk drinking guidelines (≤ 10 standard drinks/week) for hazardous use and self-reported ICD-10 alcohol dependence criteria for alcohol dependence. Analyses included ROC curves, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement.

resultsThree hundred patients participated, mean age 52 years (SD 17.4, median 54) and 51.3% males. Mean AUDIT score was 4.5 (SD 5.8, median 3) with fourteen (4.7%) meeting at least three self-reported ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence. The prevalence of hazardous use was 10.7%. AUDIT ≥ 8 exhibited a sensitivity of 56% (95% CI 40.6-73.6) and specificity 91% (95% CI 87.8-94.5) for detecting hazardous use. Against at least three self-reported ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence, AUDIT cut-off ≥ 16 showed a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 66.1-98.2) with 97% specificity (95% CI 96.0-99.2), while cut-off ≥ 20 had a sensitivity of 71% (95% CI 49.2-91.6) with 99% specificity (95% CI 98.1-99.9). The AUDIT-C cut-offs ≥ 4 and ≥ 5 exhibited low positive predictive values in detecting hazardous use (30.8% for ≥ 4 and 36.8% for ≥ 5) and dependence (13.5% for ≥ 4 and 18.4% for ≥ 5) and demonstrated a specificity ranging from 68.5 to 82.1% with negative predictive values from 98.2 to 100%.

conclusionIn Danish gastroenterology and hepatology departments, the AUDIT and AUDIT-C may be used to identify patients who are unlikely to have an alcohol problem, while positive screen results should be carefully considered and followed by more exhaustive assessment.

Indexed as

AlcoholismAlcohol-Related DisordersAdultAgedDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesAlcohol-related disordersAlcohol Use DisorderAlcohol Use disorders Identification TestClinical decision-makingScreening.Validation study

Identifiers

PMID39953621
PMCPMC11829362

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.