OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) for detection of alcohol-related problems (ARP) among hospitalized patients, to assess the potential differences according to age or sex and to compare its diagnostic value with that of some other conventionally used measures (CAGE questionnaire and biological markers). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study for evaluation of diagnostic tests including 179 hospitalized patients in a Medicine Unit. Data about weekly alcohol intake were collected through a semistructured interview. AUDIT and CAGE questionnaires were administered and blood levels of GGT, MCV, AST, ALT, alkaline phosphatase, platelet count, trylicerides and uric acid were determined. RESULTS: AUDIT sensitivity in detecting ARP was of 98%, specificity was of 94% and area under ROC was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1). Its sensitivity was shown to be lower both in the female group (94% vs. 99%) and in age group under 60 years (97% vs. 100%). CAGE showed a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 99%. Among biological markers GGT and MCV should be highlighted with sensitivities of 83% and 74% and specificities of 53% and 74% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AUDIT is an effective tool for detection of ARP among hospitalized patients. Its diagnostic usefulness being lower for females, similar for both age groups considered and clearly higher than that of other commonly used measures.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) for detection of alcohol-related problems (ARP) among hospitalized patients, to assess the potential differences according to age or sex and to compare its diagnostic value with that of some other conventionally used measures (CAGE questionnaire and biological markers). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study for evaluation of diagnostic tests including 179 hospitalized patients in a Medicine Unit. Data about weekly alcohol intake were collected through a semistructured interview. AUDIT and CAGE questionnaires were administered and blood levels of GGT, MCV, AST, ALT, alkaline phosphatase, platelet count, trylicerides and uric acid were determined. RESULTS: AUDIT sensitivity in detecting ARP was of 98%, specificity was of 94% and area under ROC was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1). Its sensitivity was shown to be lower both in the female group (94% vs. 99%) and in age group under 60 years (97% vs. 100%). CAGE showed a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 99%. Among biological markers GGT and MCV should be highlighted with sensitivities of 83% and 74% and specificities of 53% and 74% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AUDIT is an effective tool for detection of ARP among hospitalized patients. Its diagnostic usefulness being lower for females, similar for both age groups considered and clearly higher than that of other commonly used measures.