Aims

To support the free and open dissemination of research findings and information on alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. To encourage open access to peer-reviewed articles free for all to view.

For full versions of posted research articles readers are encouraged to email requests for "electronic reprints" (text file, PDF files, FAX copies) to the corresponding or lead author, who is highlighted in the posting.

___________________________________________

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Comparative performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV and DSM-5 alcohol use disorders




Under the proposed DSM-5 revision to the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), a substantial proportion of DSM-IV AUD cases will be lost or shifted in terms of severity, with some new cases added. Accordingly, the performance of the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV AUD cannot be assumed to extend to DSM-5 AUD. The objective of this paper is to compare the AUDIT-C in screening for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD.

Using a broad range of performance metrics, the AUDIT-C was tested and contrasted as a screener for DSM-IV AUD (any AUD, abuse and dependence) and DSM-5 AUD (any AUD, moderate AUD and severe AUD) in a representative sample of U.S. adults aged 21 and older and among past-year drinkers.

Optimal AUDIT-C cutpoints were identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 AUD: ≥4 for any AUD, ≥3 or ≥4 for abuse/moderate AUD and ≥4 or ≥5 for dependence/severe AUD. Screening performance was slightly better for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence but did not differ for other diagnoses. At optimal screening cutpoints, positive predictive values were slightly higher for DSM-5 overall AUD and moderate AUD than for their DSM-IV counterparts. Sensitivities were slightly higher for DSM-5 severe AUD than DSM-IV dependence. Optimal screening cutpoints shifted upwards for past-year drinkers but continued to be identical for DSM-IV and DSM-5 disorders.

Clinicians should not face any major overhaul of their current screening procedures as a result of the DSM-5 revision and should benefit from fewer false positive screening results.


Read Full Abstract


Request Reprint E-Mail: deborah.anne.dawson@gmail.com