OBJECTIVE: The CAGE questionnaire is considered a useful screening and case-finding tool for alcohol use disorders in clinical populations. Our objectives were to validate the French version of the CAGE against DSM-IV criteria and to assess performance of each item of the scale. METHOD: Data were extracted from a hospital morbidity study conducted in central France. It concerned 5452 patients-48.5% men-in short and medium-stay units. Patients answered the CAGE questionnaire as a past-year assessment. The alcohol use disorders were diagnosed by the physicians using DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependency criteria. RESULTS: The CAGE questionnaire for a cut-off of 2 had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 94%. The CAGE test was more sensitive for patients diagnosed as alcohol-dependent than for alcohol abusers (61% vs. 84%) with the same specificity (94%). These values are close to those for the English-language CAGE. The first three items (CAG) were very similar, with sensitivity 70% and specificity 94%. The eye-opening question (E) differentiated sharply between abuse and dependency, with sensitivities of 18% and 46%, respectively. A questionnaire comprising only the CAG questions of the CAGE had properties similar to the full questionnaire. CONCLUSION: CAGE is a good screening tool for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency. Given the frequent-and insufficiently diagnosed-alcohol problems among inpatients, CAGE is indicated as a first-line tool for screening for the most severe alcohol use disorders in hospital. It should ideally be used systematically. A positive reply to any of the first three items should alert the clinician and prompt further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: The CAGE questionnaire is considered a useful screening and case-finding tool for alcohol use disorders in clinical populations. Our objectives were to validate the French version of the CAGE against DSM-IV criteria and to assess performance of each item of the scale. METHOD: Data were extracted from a hospital morbidity study conducted in central France. It concerned 5452 patients-48.5% men-in short and medium-stay units. Patients answered the CAGE questionnaire as a past-year assessment. The alcohol use disorders were diagnosed by the physicians using DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependency criteria. RESULTS: The CAGE questionnaire for a cut-off of 2 had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 94%. The CAGE test was more sensitive for patients diagnosed as alcohol-dependent than for alcohol abusers (61% vs. 84%) with the same specificity (94%). These values are close to those for the English-language CAGE. The first three items (CAG) were very similar, with sensitivity 70% and specificity 94%. The eye-opening question (E) differentiated sharply between abuse and dependency, with sensitivities of 18% and 46%, respectively. A questionnaire comprising only the CAG questions of the CAGE had properties similar to the full questionnaire. CONCLUSION:CAGE is a good screening tool for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency. Given the frequent-and insufficiently diagnosed-alcohol problems among inpatients, CAGE is indicated as a first-line tool for screening for the most severe alcohol use disorders in hospital. It should ideally be used systematically. A positive reply to any of the first three items should alert the clinician and prompt further investigation.
Authors: Norah Mulvaney-Day; Tina Marshall; Kathryn Downey Piscopo; Neil Korsen; Sean Lynch; Lucy H Karnell; Garrett E Moran; Allen S Daniels; Sushmita Shoma Ghose Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Carolyn J Heckman; Jessye Cohen-Filipic; Susan Darlow; Jacqueline D Kloss; Sharon L Manne; Teja Munshi Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2013-04-26
Authors: Yen-Tyng Chen; Umedjon Ibragimov; Eric J Nehl; Tony Zheng; Na He; Frank Y Wong Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-01-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: J Geneste; B Pereira; B Arnaud; N Christol; J Liotier; O Blanc; F Teissedre; S Hope; R Schwan; P M Llorca; J Schmidt; C J Cherpitel; L Malet; G Brousse Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: C J Heckman; S Darlow; J D Kloss; J Cohen-Filipic; S L Manne; T Munshi; A L Yaroch; C Perlis Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Gabrielle G Grant; Audrey E Wolfe; Catherine R Thorpe; Nicole S Gibran; Gretchen J Carrougher; Shelley A Wiechman; Radha Holavanahalli; Frederick J Stoddard; Robert L Sheridan; Lewis E Kazis; Jeffrey C Schneider; Colleen M Ryan Journal: Burns Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 2.609