Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 702

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of the Derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in Screening for Alcohol Use Disorders and Risk Drinking in the US General Population

Dawson, Deborah A., Grant, Bridget F., Stinson, Frederick S., Zhou, Yuan·2005·Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The three consumption questions from the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) are increasingly used as a screener for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and risk drinking. METHODS: In a representative sample of US adults 18 years of age and older, AUDIT-C scores (derived from consumption questions embedded in a large national survey) were used to estimate sensitivity, specificity, and areas under receiver operator characteristic curves (AUROCs) for alcohol dependence, any AUD, and risk drinking. AUDs were defined according to DSM-IV criteria. For men, risk drinking was defined as consuming >14 drinks per week or >4 drinks in a single day at least once a month; for women, the weekly and daily limits were >7 drinks and >3 drinks, respectively. The derived AUDIT-C was evaluated among past-year drinkers (n = 26,946), within the total population (n = 43,093), in groups defined by age, sex, and race/ethnicity, and among pregnant women, persons attending an emergency room, and college students. RESULTS: For past-year drinkers, the AUROCs for the derived AUDIT-C were 0.887 for alcohol dependence, 0.860 for any AUD, and 0.966 for risk drinking. Scores were higher in the total population, 0.931, 0.917, and 0.981, respectively. The derived AUDIT-C performed slightly better in screening for dependence among women than men. Screening for risk drinking was better among men, probably because the third AUDIT-C question directly mirrors one of the definitions of risk drinking for men but not for women. Performance in pregnant women, past-year emergency room patients, and college students was on a par with performance in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The derived AUDIT-C performs well in screening for AUDs and risk drinking. The use of variable cut points for men and women improves its sensitivity and specificity. Validation in a realistic screening situation, in which the AUDIT-C questions are asked as stand-alone and not embedded items, is a critical future step.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/01.alc.0000164374.32229.a2

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 702

Metadata

Authors
Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Zhou, Y.
Venue
Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
844-854
ISSN
0145-6008 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019541198
Cited by
702
References
1
FWCI
9.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of the Derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in Screening for Alcohol Use Disorders and Risk Drinking in the US General Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.alc.0000164374.32229.a2
The paper
Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Effectiveness of the Derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) in Screening for Alcohol Use Disorders and Risk Drinking in the US General Population. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.alc.0000164374.32229.a2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.