Cited by 336Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Effectiveness of the AUDIT-C as a Screening Test for Alcohol Misuse in Three Race/Ethnic Groups

Open access
Frank, Danielle, DeBenedetti, Anna F., Volk, Robert J., Williams, Emily C., Kivlahan, Daniel R., Bradley, Katharine A.·2008·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) is a brief validated screen for risky drinking and alcohol abuse and dependence (alcohol misuse). However, the AUDIT-C was validated in predominantly White populations, and its performance in different racial/ethnic groups is unclear.Objective To evaluate the validity of the AUDIT-C among primary care patients from the predominant racial/ethnic subgroups within the United States: White, African American, and Hispanic.Design Cross-sectional interview validation study.Participants 1,292 outpatients from an academic family practice clinic in Texas (90% of randomly sampled eligible).Measurements and main results Race/ethnicity was self-reported. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AuROCs) evaluated overall AUDIT-C performance in the 3 racial/ethnic groups compared to diagnostic interviews for alcohol misuse. AUDIT-C sensitivities and specificities at recommended screening thresholds were compared across racial/ethnic groups. AuROCs were greater than 0.85 in all 3 groups, with no significant differences across racial/ethnic groups in men (P = .43) or women (P = .12). At previously recommended cut points, there were statistically significant differences by race in AUDIT-C sensitivities but not specificities. In women, the sensitivity was higher in Hispanic (85%) than in African-American (67%; P = .03) or White (70%; P = .04) women. In men, the sensitivity was higher in White (95%) than in African-American men (76%; P = .01), with no significant difference from Hispanic men (85%; P = .11).Conclusions The overall performance of the AUDIT-C was excellent in all 3 racial/ethnic groups as reflected by high AuROCs. At recommended cut points, there were significant differences in the AUDIT-C's sensitivity but not in specificity across the 3 racial/ethnic groups.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-008-0594-0

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bradley KA, McDonell MB, Bush K, Kivlahan DR, Diehr P, Fihn SD. The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change in older male primary care patients. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22(8):1842-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frank, D., DeBenedetti, A. F., Volk, R. J., Williams, E. C., Kivlahan, D. R., & Bradley, K. A.
Affiliations
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Frank, Danielle
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2008-04-18
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
781-787
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2029905732
Cited by
336
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21AA014672)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
AUDIT-C, alcohol misuse screening, racial and ethnic differences, African American patients, Hispanic patients, Caucasian patients, screening sensitivity and specificity, primary care, general practice, alcoholism
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Alcohol Drinking, Black or African American, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Alcohol-Related Disorders, White People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review