Literature DB >> 7945575

Comparison of the CAGE questionnaire versus some biochemical markers in the diagnosis of alcoholism.

E Girela1, E Villanueva, C Hernandez-Cueto, J D Luna.   

Abstract

We have compared the individual sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the CAGE questionnaire, plasma levels of ethanol and acetate, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), and glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb A1c) in a group of 50 healthy non-alcoholic controls and 31 patients with non-alcoholic liver disease (Group I), and in a second group of 40 alcoholic patients (Group II). Taken individually, the CAGE questionnaire was the most efficient (96% sensitive and 92% specific), followed by plasma levels of acetate (74% sensitive and 85% specific), MCV (64% sensitive and 91% specific) and GGT (72% sensitive and 80% specific). Hb A1c did not show any statistically significant difference between alcoholics and non-alcoholics and thus is of no use as a screening test for the diagnosis of alcoholism. Furthermore, we attempted to design a discrimination procedure to separate alcoholics from controls and patients with non-alcoholic hepatic diseases using a combination of the most promising tests. The most powerful discrimination model was constructed with the four questions of the CAGE questionnaire. The percentage of correct classifications using this model was 99% from Group I (specificity) and 90% from Group II (sensitivity). The CAGE questionnaire was itself so useful as a discriminant in our sample that no increased diagnostic efficacy was noticed on adding any of the other tests. Using objective variables (MCV, acetate and GGT) as discriminants, we could correctly classify 96% of subjects from Group I (specificity) and only 64% from Group II (sensitivity).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7945575

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol        ISSN: 0735-0414            Impact factor:   2.826


  9 in total

1.  The effect of heavy drinking on social security old-age and survivors insurance contributions and benefits.

Authors:  Jan Ostermann; Frank A Sloan
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Brief report of a test of differential alcohol risk using sibling attributions of paternal alcoholism.

Authors:  Marcella H Boynton; Jeremy Arkes; Rick H Hoyle
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.582

Review 3.  Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Patients with Alcoholic Liver Disease.

Authors:  Lorenzo Leggio; Mary R Lee
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2016-10-29       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Do primary care physicians screen patients about alcohol intake using the CAGE questions?

Authors:  M D Wenrich; D S Paauw; J D Carline; J R Curtis; P G Ramsey
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Alcohol-consumption trajectories and associated characteristics among adults older than age 50.

Authors:  Alyssa Platt; Frank A Sloan; Philip Costanzo
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.582

6.  Treatment of alcoholic liver disease.

Authors:  Thomas H Frazier; Abigail M Stocker; Nicole A Kershner; Luis S Marsano; Craig J McClain
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 7.  Challenges in transplantation for alcoholic liver disease.

Authors:  Gabriela A Berlakovich
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  An online daily diary study of alcohol use using Amazon's Mechanical Turk.

Authors:  Marcella H Boynton; Laura Smart Richman
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Rev       Date:  2014-06-03

9.  KASL clinical practice guidelines: management of alcoholic liver disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol       Date:  2013-09-30
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.