C J Cherpitel1. 1. Western Consortium for Public Health, Alcohol Research Group, Berkeley, California, USA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of several alcohol screening instruments (CAGE, brief MAST, AUDIT, TWEAK, History of Trauma Scale) and other measures (breath alcohol analyzer reading and reporting of drinking before the event), in an emergency department population, against International Classification of Disease, revision 10 (ICD-10) criteria for harmful drinking and for alcohol dependence from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) by gender, race, and injury status. DESIGN: A probability sample of patients was subjected to breath alcohol analysis and interviewed (N = 1,330.) SETTING: University of Mississippi Medical Center. RESULTS: Overall, the TWEAK and AUDIT methods were the most sensitive, identifying 84% and 81%, respectively, of patients who were positive for alcohol dependence. Sensitivity was not as high for females, whites, or the noninjured. Sensitivities for the breath alcohol analysis and self-reported drinking were 20% and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the effectiveness of screening instruments varies by gender, race, and injury status and that positive breath alcohol analysis readings and reporting of drinking before the event are not good indicators of alcohol dependence in this population.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of several alcohol screening instruments (CAGE, brief MAST, AUDIT, TWEAK, History of Trauma Scale) and other measures (breath alcohol analyzer reading and reporting of drinking before the event), in an emergency department population, against International Classification of Disease, revision 10 (ICD-10) criteria for harmful drinking and for alcohol dependence from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) by gender, race, and injury status. DESIGN: A probability sample of patients was subjected to breath alcohol analysis and interviewed (N = 1,330.) SETTING: University of Mississippi Medical Center. RESULTS: Overall, the TWEAK and AUDIT methods were the most sensitive, identifying 84% and 81%, respectively, of patients who were positive for alcohol dependence. Sensitivity was not as high for females, whites, or the noninjured. Sensitivities for the breath alcohol analysis and self-reported drinking were 20% and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the effectiveness of screening instruments varies by gender, race, and injury status and that positive breath alcohol analysis readings and reporting of drinking before the event are not good indicators of alcohol dependence in this population.
Authors: Edward Bernstein; Judith Bernstein; James Feldman; William Fernandez; Melissa Hagan; Patricia Mitchell; Clara Safi; Robert Woolard; Mike Mello; Janette Baird; Christina Lee; Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi; Kerry Broderick; Kathryn A Laperrier; Arthur Kellermann; Marlena M Wald; Robert E Taylor; Kim Walton; Michelle Grant-Ervin; Denise Rollinson; David Edwards; Theodore Chan; Dan Davis; Jean Buchanan Marshall; Robert Aseltine; Amy James; Elizabeth Schilling; Khamis Abu-Hasaballah; Brigitte M Baumann; Edwin D Boudreaux; Ronald F Maio; Rebecca M Cunningham; Teresa Murrell; David Doezema; Deirdre Anglin; Adriana Eliassen; Marcus Martin; Jesse Pines; Leslie Buchanan; James Turner; Gail D'Onofrio; Linda C Degutis; Patricia Owens Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Tyler B Wray; Mark A Celio; Christopher W Kahler; Nancy P Barnett; Nadine R Mastroleo; Don Operario; Peter M Monti Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; Michael V Pantalon; Linda C Degutis; David A Fiellin; Patrick G O'connor Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Federico E Vaca; James Dziura; Fuad Abujarad; Michael V Pantalon; Allen Hsiao; Craig A Field; Gail D'Onofrio Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Kerry B Broderick; Megan L Ranney; Federico E Vaca; Gail D'Onofrio; Richard E Rothman; Karin V Rhodes; Bruce Becker; Jason S Haukoos Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.451