Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2026
A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers
Published on: January 5, 2018
Validation of the alcohol use disorders identification test in a Danish hospital setting
Peter Næsborg Schøler1,2, Max Benjamin Andersen3, Kjeld Andersen3,4,5
1Unit for Clinical Alcohol Research, Research Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. pscholer@health.sdu.dk.
Background:
Early identification of potential alcohol-problems is central for timely intervention and treatment referral. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) serve as globally recognized and validated screening tools for this purpose. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic validity of internationally recommended AUDIT cut-off scores ≥ 8, ≥16, ≥ 20, and AUDIT-C cut-off scores ≥ 4, ≥5 using the Danish language versions of questionnaires in a hospital setting.
Methods:
Questionnaire data were collected from 2/15/2023, to 4/27/2023 at the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. We tested the World Health Organization's recommended AUDIT cut-offs: ≥8 for hazardous use, ≥ 16 suggestive of dependence, ≥ 20 high likelihood of dependence, along with AUDIT-C ≥ 4 and ≥ 5 using the following reference standard: Danish low-risk drinking guidelines (≤ 10 standard drinks/week) for hazardous use and self-reported ICD-10 alcohol dependence criteria for alcohol dependence. Analyses included ROC curves, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement.
Results:
Three hundred patients participated, mean age 52 years (SD 17.4, median 54) and 51.3% males. Mean AUDIT score was 4.5 (SD 5.8, median 3) with fourteen (4.7%) meeting at least three self-reported ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence. The prevalence of hazardous use was 10.7%. AUDIT ≥ 8 exhibited a sensitivity of 56% (95% CI 40.6-73.6) and specificity 91% (95% CI 87.8-94.5) for detecting hazardous use. Against at least three self-reported ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence, AUDIT cut-off ≥ 16 showed a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 66.1-98.2) with 97% specificity (95% CI 96.0-99.2), while cut-off ≥ 20 had a sensitivity of 71% (95% CI 49.2-91.6) with 99% specificity (95% CI 98.1-99.9). The AUDIT-C cut-offs ≥ 4 and ≥ 5 exhibited low positive predictive values in detecting hazardous use (30.8% for ≥ 4 and 36.8% for ≥ 5) and dependence (13.5% for ≥ 4 and 18.4% for ≥ 5) and demonstrated a specificity ranging from 68.5 to 82.1% with negative predictive values from 98.2 to 100%.
Conclusion:
In Danish gastroenterology and hepatology departments, the AUDIT and AUDIT-C may be used to identify patients who are unlikely to have an alcohol problem, while positive screen results should be carefully considered and followed by more exhaustive assessment.
