Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41321978›Full record

ArticleAddictive behaviors reports2025

Evaluating a drink-counting and a breathalyzer-coupled app for monitoring alcohol use: A comparison with timeline followback and peth biomarker.

Josefine Östh, Andreas Lundin, Peter Wennberg, Sven Andréasson, Anna-Karin Danielsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Josefine ÖsthDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1E, 113 65 Stockholm, Sweden.
Andreas LundinDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1E, 113 65 Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter WennbergDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1E, 113 65 Stockholm, Sweden.
Sven AndréassonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1E, 113 65 Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna-Karin DanielssonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1E, 113 65 Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Alcohol dependenceHeavy drinkingmHealthPEthTimeline Followback

Identifiers

PMID41321978
PMCPMC12663845

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.