AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL The good news is that if I had to point a student to a single large epidemiological study that was representative of the course of alcoholism in the United States, I could not point to a paper superior to that of Dawson et al. (2005). The bad news is that the authors are correct to warn us that their ‘cross-sectional data do not necessarily reflect the course of recovery across time for any individual’. This acknowledgement makes many of their findings suspect. What comes out of computers, even if you add decimals, is only as good as what goes in. At the heart of the difficulties raised by their paper is a paradox. If you wish to predict an election, a large representative sample of the population, interviewed by a trained staff, is a necessity. If you wish to study secrets of which the owner does not wish to be aware, for example incest or not being in control of one's drinking over the past year, a small intensively studied, but often unrepresentative, sample whom the investigator has actually met, is a necessity. In some facets of alcohol abuse the first strategy is preferable [e.g. point prevalence of alcohol abuse based on the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire or Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), presence or absence of treatment, or cirrhosis mortality]; but if one wishes to study return to controlled drinking one needs to include other informants and to conduct observations over time until the ‘secret’ emerges or can be ruled out on a case-by-case basis. A study reported by two reputable investigators, the Sobells, of treated alcoholics returning ‘successfully’ to controlled drinking illustrates my point. At the 2-year mark Sobell & Sobell (1976) claimed success, but at the 10-year mark Pendery et al. (1982), using time and a less gullible approach to their subjects’ assertions, revealed that the Sobells’ earlier reports of asymptomatic drinking were an illusion. In my own longitudinal studies, when men in my study assert for 5 years of continuous follow-up that that they have been out of control in their use of alcohol or that they have been abstinent, their relatives and the next decade uphold their story. However, when alcoholics tell me, even over a couple of years, that they have been regularly using alcohol without problems, continued follow-up often reveals self-deception. Again, large epidemiological studies sometimes falter when it comes to diagnosis. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM-IV) symptom-based diagnosis of alcohol dependence is a big step forward from the old quantity/frequency measures of the past, but such criteria greatly overestimate alcohol dependence in adolescents who plan and cherish such symptoms rather than feel humiliated and out of control. At a homecoming party the sophomore who quaffs eight planned martinis, proudly punches a stranger and then vomits, is far more likely after graduation to resume ‘social drinking’ than the father who, against better judgement at his daughter's wedding, sneaks eight martinis, punches a stranger and then vomits. Yet both might meet Dawson's diagnosis of dependence. To increase risk of error, after 20 years the number of symptoms in the fraternity brother's war story might grow while after a few years the symptoms in the humiliated father's confessional might shrink. References Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., Chou, P. S., Huang, B. & Ruan, W. J. (2005) Recovery from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001–2002. Addiction, 100, 281– 292. Pendery, M. L., I. M. Maltzman & L. J. West (1982) Controlled drinking by alcoholics? New findings and a reevaluation of a major affirmative study. Science, 217, 169– 175. Sobell, M. B. & L. C. Sobell (1976) Second year treatment outcome of alcoholics treated by individualized behavior therapy: results. Behavior Research and Therapy, 14, 195– 215. Citing Literature Volume100, Issue3March 2005Pages 294-294 ReferencesRelatedInformation