Towards ICD-11 for alcohol dependence: Diagnostic agreement with ICD-10, DSM-5, DSM-IV, DSM-III-R and DSM-III diagnoses in a Swedish general population of women

Lundin, Andreas; Wærn, Margda; Löve, Jesper; Lövestad, Solveig; Hensing, Gunnel; Danielsson, Anna–Karin

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108925

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, several studies used the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) 64–68. Eleven studies from HICs including Hong Kong,69 Germany,70 71 Israel,72 Australia,73 the Netherlands,74 Sweden,75 Ireland,37 USA,76 Finland77 and Switzerland38 used country-specific versions of CIDI-structured diagnostic tools based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, DSM-5 or ICD-10 and ICD-1119 78 to detect and diagnose AUD, AA or AD. It was also used in three studies from LMICs, including Sri Lanka,79 Ethiopia51 and South Africa 80…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, the DSM-IV and DSM-5 25 26 were used by two HIC studies (from Switzerland 38 and Sweden 75 ) to diagnose AA, AD or AUD.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prevalence of AUD, including older diagnostic categories like AA and AD, was reported by 10 out of 29 HIC studies, including Hong Kong, 69 Finland, 77 Germany, 70 Switzerland, 38 Israel, 72 Australia, 73 UK, 54 Sweden, 75 Chicago, USA 88 and Ireland 37 (table: online supplemental file 3 ). In these studies, the prevalence of any lifetime or current AUD ranged from 4.3% to 36.8% in the overall population, 19.8% to 38.3% in males and 6.3% to 20.6% in females.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More specifically, this review identified significant heterogeneity and inconsistency in how various forms of problem drinking were defined and measured,24 33 35–39 47 49 57 58 69 74 76 91–106 which aligns with previous reviews 2. Although problem drinking exists on a continuum from mild to more severe, various studies tended to focus on one point in the problem severity continuum (eg, heavy drinking, HED/BD or AA, AD and AUD) and measures these forms of problem drinking with diverse measurement tools like QF questions, RSOD criteria, screening tools or structured diagnostic interviews 33–40 46 49–63 69–77 79 80 88–90 93 96–98 101 107–122 128 130. These tools also were variable in the timeframe used to assess problem drinking, with the assessment period ranging from days, weeks, months or years among the studies included in this review 33–40 62 63 93 96–98 108 128 130…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, it is important to note that this review has weaknesses concerning the examination of factors associated with problem drinking, including the use of less powerful statistical tests (non-parametric tests) or no use of statistical tests,36 37 47 48 50 53 88 99 110 114 125 152 only a few variables were modelled to control confounding,71 77 90 96 111 112 124 126 use of non-validated tools that could result in measurement errors,33 35 36 49 80 94 104 118 128 sampling only (predominantly) males or females that could cause selection bias,55 63 75 112 120 128 high attrition rates40 75 129 and small sample sizes 58 63 89 108 109…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Scoping review of assessment tools for, magnitudes of and factors associated with problem drinking in population-based studies

Dagne,

Myers,

Mihretu

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe term “problem drinking” includes a spectrum of alcohol problems ranging from excessive or heavy drinking to alcohol use disorder. Problem drinking is a leading risk factor for death and disability globally. It has been measured and conceptualised in different ways, which has made it difficult to identify common risk factors for problem alcohol use. This scoping review aims to synthesise what is known about the assessment of problem drinking, its magnitude and associated factors.MethodsFour databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus) and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 25 November 2023. Studies were eligible if they focused on people aged 15 and above, were population-based studies reporting problem alcohol use and published in the English language. This review was reported based on guidelines from the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist’. Critical appraisal was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsFrom the 14 296 records identified, 10 749 underwent title/abstract screening, of which 352 full-text articles were assessed, and 81 articles were included for data extraction. Included studies assessed alcohol use with self-report quantity/frequency questionnaires, criteria to determine risky single occasion drinking, validated screening tools, or structured clinical and diagnostic interviews. The most widely used screening tool was the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. Studies defined problem drinking in various ways, including excessive/heavy drinking, binge drinking, alcohol use disorder, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Across studies, the prevalence of heavy drinking ranged from <1.0% to 53.0%, binge drinking from 2.7% to 48.2%, alcohol abuse from 4.0% to 19.0%, alcohol dependence from 0.1% to 39.0% and alcohol use disorder from 2.0% to 66.6%. Factors associated with problem drinking varied across studies. These included sociodemographic and economic factors (age, sex, relationship status, education, employment, income level, religion, race, location and alcohol outlet density) and clinical factors (like medical problems, mental disorders, other substance use and quality of life).ConclusionsDue to differences in measurement, study designs and assessed risk factors, the prevalence of and factors associated with problem drinking varied widely across studies and settings. The alcohol field would benefit from harmonised measurements of alcohol use and problem drinking as this would allow for comparisons to be made across countries and for meta-analyses to be conducted.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework ID:https://osf.io/2anj3.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, the DSM-IV and DSM-5 25 26 were used by two HIC studies (from Switzerland 38 and Sweden 75 ) to diagnose AA, AD or AUD.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scoping review of assessment tools for, magnitudes of and factors associated with problem drinking in population-based studies

Dagne,

Myers,

Mihretu

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Designing clinical trials to address alcohol use and alcohol-associated liver disease: an expert panel Consensus Statement

Lee,

Witkiewitz,

Mellinger

et al. 2024

Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy of Varenicline in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Phimarn

Sakhancord

Paitoon

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although varenicline has been used for alcohol dependence (AD) treatment, its efficacy for this condition remains controversial. Aims: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the efficacy and safety of varenicline in patients with AD. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ThaiLis were systematically searched. RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of varenicline in patients with AD were included. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were independently performed by two authors. The Jadad score and Cochrane risk of bias were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and chi-squared tests. Results: Twenty-two high-quality RCTs on 1421 participants were included. Varenicline significantly reduced alcohol-related outcomes compared with placebo based on percentage of abstinent days (standardized mean difference [SMD] 4.20 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21, 8.19; p = 0.04), drinks per day (SMD −0.23 drinks; 95% CI: −0.43, −0.04; p = 0.02), drinks per drinking day (SMD −0.24 drinks; 95% CI: −0.44, −0.05; p = 0.01), craving assessed using the Penn alcohol craving scale (SMD −0.35; 95% CI: −0.59, −0.12; p = 0.003), and craving assessed using the alcohol urge questionnaire (SMD −1.41; 95% CI: −2.12, −0.71; p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant effects on abstinence rate, percentage of drinking days, percentage of heavy drinking days, alcohol intoxication, or drug compliance. Serious side effects were not observed in the varenicline or placebo groups. Conclusion: Our results indicated that AD patients treated with varenicline showed improvement in percentage of very heavy drinking days, percentage of abstinent days, drinks per day, drinks per drinking day, and craving. However, well-designed RCTs with a large sample size and long duration on varenicline treatment in AD remain warranted to confirm our findings.

show abstract

Towards ICD-11 for alcohol dependence: Diagnostic agreement with ICD-10, DSM-5, DSM-IV, DSM-III-R and DSM-III diagnoses in a Swedish general population of women

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Scoping review of assessment tools for, magnitudes of and factors associated with problem drinking in population-based studies

Scoping review of assessment tools for, magnitudes of and factors associated with problem drinking in population-based studies

Designing clinical trials to address alcohol use and alcohol-associated liver disease: an expert panel Consensus Statement

Efficacy of Varenicline in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About