Cited by 10Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsHealth Education and Validation

Concurrent validity of an estimator of weekly alcohol consumption (EWAC) based on the extended AUDIT

Open access
Dutey‐Magni, Peter, Brown, Jamie, Holmes, John, Sinclair, Julia·2022·Addiction

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background and Aims: The three‐question Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT‐C) is frequently used in healthcare for screening and brief advice about levels of alcohol consumption. AUDIT‐C scores (0–12) provide feedback as categories of risk rather than estimates of actual alcohol intake, an important metric for behaviour change. The study aimed to (i) develop a continuous metric from the Extended AUDIT‐C expressed in United Kingdom (UK) units (8 g pure ethanol), offering equivalent accuracy, and providing a direct estimator of weekly alcohol consumption (EWAC) and (ii) evaluate the EWAC's bias and error using the graduated‐frequency (GF) questionnaire as a reference standard of alcohol consumption. Design: Cross‐sectional diagnostic study based on a nationally‐representative survey. Settings: Community dwelling households in England. Participants: A total of 22 404 household residents aged ≥16 years reporting drinking alcohol at least occasionally. Measurements: Computer‐assisted personal interviews consisting of (i) AUDIT questionnaire with extended response items (the ‘Extended AUDIT’) and (ii) GF. Primary outcomes were: mean deviation <1 UK unit (metric of bias); root‐mean‐square deviation <2 UK units (metric of total error) between EWAC and GF. The secondary outcome was the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for predicting alcohol consumption in excess of 14 and 35 UK units. Findings: EWAC had a positive bias of 0.2 UK units (95% CI = 0.08, 0.4) compared with GF. Deviations were skewed: whereas the mean error was ±11 UK units/week [9.5, 11.9], in half of participants the deviation between EWAC and GF was between 0 and ±2.1 UK units/week. EWAC predicted consumption in excess of 14 UK units/week with a significantly greater area under the curve (0.918 [0.914, 0.923]) than AUDIT‐C (0.870 [0.864, 0.876]) or the full AUDIT (0.854 [0.847, 0.860]). Conclusions: A new estimator of weekly alcohol consumption, which uses answers to the Extended AUDIT‐C, meets the targeted bias tolerance. It is superior in accuracy to AUDIT‐C and the full 10‐item AUDIT when predicting consumption thresholds, making it a reliable complement to the Extended AUDIT‐C for health promotion interventions.

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 · 10.1111/add.15662

Cites

8 of 8 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dutey‐Magni, P., Brown, J., Holmes, J., & Sinclair, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Dutey‐Magni, Peter
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-10-14
Volume
117
Issue
3
Pages
580-589
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W3192701357
Cited by
10
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council Canada (MR/P016960/1)
  • National Institute for Health Research (SPHR‐SWP‐ALC‐WP5)
  • Public Health Research Programme (15/63/01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol consumption assessment, AUDIT-C, concurrent validity, alcohol screening, alcohol consumption thresholds, measurement bias, alcoholism, brief advice, alcohol harm prevention, community-dwelling adults, England, alcohol consumption monitoring
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholism, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Mass Screening, Surveys and Questionnaires

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