Study designs of evaluations included in the review
No inclusion criteria relating to the study design were specified.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies evaluating screening methods for alcohol problems conducted in a primary care setting were eligible for inclusion. The screening methods studied included the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and variations; the CAGE questionnaire and variations; the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) and variations; the 2-question screen proposed by Cyr and Wartman; mental and general health screens; quantity-frequency questions; and clinical indicators such as clinical recognition and laboratory tests.
The studies were conducted in the following primary care settings: community physicians' offices; hospital-based clinics; community practices; family practices including those affiliated to academic institutions; and general medical clinics.
Reference standard test against which the new test was compared
The included studies were required to use an identified diagnostic instrument or an operational definition as the reference standard, to establish the presence or absence of an alcohol problem. The reference standards used included: hazardous drinking (5 or more drinks per week for men); harmful drinking (medical, trauma, domestic or social problems caused by alcohol); ICD-10; the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (AUDADIS); Trilevel World Health Organization interview; Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS); at-risk drinking (various definitions); excessive drinking (more than 14 and more than 7 drinks per week for men and women, respectively); heavy drinking (variably defined); and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI).
Participants included in the review
No inclusion criteria relating to patient characteristics were specified. The mean age of the patients in the included studies (where reported) ranged from 36 to 72 years. The proportion of males ranged from 19 to 100%.
Outcomes assessed in the review
The included studies were required to report performance characteristics (e.g. sensitivity and specificity) for the test evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity were the outcome measures reported by the review.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors do not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many of the reviewers performed the selection.