Observational studyFamily practice2025
Hypertension and alcohol: a cross-sectional study comparing PEth with AUDIT and AUDIT-C in primary care.
Observational study in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing the Documentation of Phosphatidylethanol and Alcohol History in Hypertension Management in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis cross-sectional study aimed to describe proportions of patients with indications of alcohol consumption using phosphatidylethanol (PEth), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and its consumption-focused version (AUDIT-C), in relation to blood pressure (BP) control, overall and by sex.
methodsA total of 270 hypertensive primary care patients (ICD-10: I10.9) were stratified into BP control groups: controlled (<140/90 mmHg), uncontrolled (≥140/90 mmHg), and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH; ≥140/90 mmHg with ≥3 antihypertensive drugs). A randomized sample from each stratum was invited, baseline data were collected. Alcohol consumption using predefined categories for PEth and AUDIT, and hazardous use (PEth ≥ 0.122 µmol/L; AUDIT ≥ 8; AUDIT-C ≥ 5 for men, ≥4 for women), were analyzed in relation to BP control groups.
resultsMean age was 67 ± 11 years; 42% were women. PEth indicated high and regular alcohol consumption in 6.4% of controlled, 5.3% of uncontrolled, and 19.2% of aTRH patients (controlled vs. aTRH, P = .027; uncontrolled vs. aTRH, P = .013). AUDIT showed no significant differences in hazardous use between BP groups (P = .865). AUDIT-C identified slightly higher proportions of hazardous use than PEth, across BP groups and sexes. No significant differences were found between BP groups for hazardous use by PEth (P = .339) or AUDIT-C (P = .150).
conclusionsPEth revealed significantly higher alcohol use in the aTRH group, undetected by AUDIT. AUDIT-C and PEth identified more hazardous use than AUDIT, suggesting their potential to prompt alcohol-related discussions and support evidence-based hypertension care. PEth correlated more strongly with AUDIT-C than with AUDIT. CLINICAL
trial registrationRetrospectively registered in Clinical Trials, SLSO2022-0143, 2022-12-10.
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.