Literature DB >> 11255902

Screening properties of questionnaires and laboratory tests for the detection of alcohol abuse or dependence in a general practice population.

B Aertgeerts1, F Buntinx, S Ansoms, J Fevery.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early identification of alcohol abuse or dependence is important in general practice because many diseases are influenced by alcohol. General practitioners, however, fail to recognise most patients with alcohol problems. AIM: To assess the diagnostic performance of the CAGE and AUDIT questionnaires, their derivatives, and laboratory tests in screening for alcohol abuse or dependence in a primary care population (male and female patients), attending their general practitioner (GP). DESIGN OF STUDY: A diagnostic cross-sectional study.
SETTING: A random sample of patients who were over 18 years of age (n = 1992) attending 69 general practices situated in the same region in Belgium.
METHOD: Alcohol questionnaires (CIDI 1.1, section I, CAGE, AUDIT, AUDIT-C, Five-Shot, and AUDIT Piccinelli) were completed, demographic information was recorded, and patients underwent conventional blood tests, including mean corpuscular volume, liver function tests, the gamma-glutamyl transferase test, and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT, estimated using %CDT). Calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, odds ratios with their 95% CIs, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for different scores of the questionnaires and laboratory tests, using DSM-III-R as the reference standard.
RESULTS: The past-year prevalence of alcohol abuse or dependence in this population was 8.9% (178/1992) of which there were 132 male and 45 female patients attending a general practice. The GPs identified 33.5% of patients with alcohol abuse or dependence. Among male patients, all questionnaires had reasonable sensitivities between 68% and 93% and hence at lower cut-points than recommended. Only the sensitivity of the CAGE, even at its lowest cut-point of > or = 1 was lower (62%). In female patients the sensitivities were lower; however, odds ratios were higher for different questionnaires. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves did not differ between the questionnaires. The laboratory tests had low diagnostic accuracy with areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) between 0.60 and 0.67 for female patients and 0.57 and 0.65 for male patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest known studies on alcohol abuse or dependence among family care practices. We confirm earlier results that the AUDIT questionnaire seems equally appropriate for males and females; however, screening properties among male patients are higher. Nevertheless, the Five-Shot questionnaire is shorter and easier to use in a general practice setting and has nearly the same diagnostic properties in male and female general practice patient populations. We confirm that conventional laboratory tests are of no use for detecting alcohol abuse or dependence in a primary care setting. Also, the %CDT cannot been used as a screening instrument in this general practice population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11255902      PMCID: PMC1313952     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  36 in total

1.  Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, gamma-glutamyltransferase, and mean cell volume in a general practice population.

Authors:  G J Meerkerk; K H Njoo; I M Bongers; P Trienekens; J A van Oers
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 2.  Contrasting self-report screens for alcohol problems: a review.

Authors:  S A Maisto; G J Connors; J P Allen
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.455

3.  Training general practitioners.

Authors:  M M Glatt
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.826

Review 4.  A review of research on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

Authors:  J P Allen; R Z Litten; J B Fertig; T Babor
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.455

Review 5.  Alcohol abuse and alcoholism in primary health care settings.

Authors:  K Magruder-Habib; A M Durand; K A Frey
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 0.493

6.  Carbohydrate-deficient transferrin as a screening marker for drinking in a general hospital population.

Authors:  O M Lesch; H Walter; H Freitag; D E Heggli; A Leitner; R Mader; A Neumeister; V Passweg; H Pusch; B Semler; E Sundrehagen; S Kasper
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.826

7.  Detection of problem drinkers: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

Authors:  A Schmidt; K L Barry; M F Fleming
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 0.954

8.  Screening with the Alcohol use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in an inner-city population.

Authors:  J H Isaacson; R Butler; M Zacharek; A Tzelepis
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  [Detection of alcoholism in the medical office: applicability of the CAGE questionnaire by the practicing physician. Group of Medical Practitioners PMU].

Authors:  A Perdrix; H Decrey; A Pécoud; B Burnand; B Yersin
Journal:  Schweiz Med Wochenschr       Date:  1995-09-23

10.  Effectiveness of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in occupational health screenings.

Authors:  K Seppä; R Mäkelä; P Sillanaukee
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.455

View more
  50 in total

1.  Changing the culture?

Authors:  D Jewell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Gender differences in the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test in multinational general population surveys.

Authors:  Chun-Zi Peng; Richard W Wilsnack; Arlinda F Kristjanson; Perry Benson; Sharon C Wilsnack
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 3.  The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?

Authors:  Blase Gambino
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2012-12

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

Authors:  Deborah A Dawson; Sharon M Smith; Tulshi D Saha; Anna D Rubinsky; Bridget F Grant
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 4.492

5.  Associations between AUDIT-C and mortality vary by age and sex.

Authors:  Alex H S Harris; Katharine A Bradley; Thomas Bowe; Patricia Henderson; Rudolf Moos
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.459

Review 6.  Proteomic approaches and identification of novel therapeutic targets for alcoholism.

Authors:  Giorgio Gorini; R Adron Harris; R Dayne Mayfield
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 7.853

7.  Psychometric properties of alcohol screening tests in the emergency department in Argentina, Mexico and the United States.

Authors:  Mariana Cremonte; Rubén Daniel Ledesma; Cheryl J Cherpitel; Guilherme Borges
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 3.913

8.  Short-term risk of suicide attempt associated with patterns of patient-reported alcohol use determined by routine AUDIT-C among adults receiving mental healthcare.

Authors:  Julie E Richards; Susan M Shortreed; Greg E Simon; Robert B Penfold; Joseph E Glass; Rebecca Ziebell; Emily C Williams
Journal:  Gen Hosp Psychiatry       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 3.238

9.  Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and ROC Curves with Covariate Adjusted Semiparametric Mixtures.

Authors:  Philipp Doebler; Heinz Holling
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 2.500

10.  Alcohol and Mortality: Combining Self-Reported (AUDIT-C) and Biomarker Detected (PEth) Alcohol Measures Among HIV Infected and Uninfected.

Authors:  Oghenowede Eyawo; Kathleen A McGinnis; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin; Judith A Hahn; Emily C Williams; Adam J Gordon; Brandon D L Marshall; Kevin L Kraemer; Stephen Crystal; Julie R Gaither; E Jennifer Edelman; Kendall J Bryant; Janet P Tate
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.731

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.