ArticleAddictive behaviors reports2025
Evaluating a drink-counting and a breathalyzer-coupled app for monitoring alcohol use: A comparison with timeline followback and peth biomarker.
Article in Addictive behaviors reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Emerging Technologies to Support Individuals With At-Risk Alcohol Consumption: Pilot Controlled Investigation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Using Mobile Technology to Study Episodes of Alcohol Self-Administration in Daily Life: A Narrative Review.Current addiction reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Accurately measuring alcohol consumption remains a challenge. This study aimed to evaluate two app-based methods, one using drink-count logging and one using a breathalyzer, by comparing them to retrospective self-report (Timeline Followback, TLFB) and a biomarker of alcohol use (Phosphatidylethanol, PEth). Methods: Data were acquired from a randomized controlled trial involving alcohol-dependent adults (n = 110). Standard drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days reported via the drink-counting app or breathalyzer, were compared with TLFB data over the 12-week period using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Correlation with PEth was assessed only at the 12-week mark, using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rho) and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, reporting the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Compared to app-based methods, TLFB consistently identified more drinking days and heavy drinking days. However, the drink-counting app's estimates were still relatively close to TLFB and demonstrated strong agreement for drinking days across the different time intervals (CCC = 0.71-0.86). The drink-counting app also showed a strong correlation with PEth values for standard drinks and drinking days (rho = 0.74-0.78). In contrast, breathalyzer data generally showed weak agreement with both TLFB and PEth. Conclusions: Although TLFB yielded more drinking and heavy drinking days, the drink-counting app showed strong agreement with TLFB and correlated closely with PEth levels, indicating good validity. In contrast, breathalyzer data showed weaker agreement, likely due to lower usage during drinking episodes. These findings suggest that drink-counting apps could provide a reliable tool for monitoring alcohol use, offering advantages over both retrospective reports and breathalyzer measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.