Literature DB >> 9719403

Comparison of cage and mast with the alcohol markers CDT, gamma-GT, ALAT, ASAT and MCV.

T Wetterling1, R D Kanitz, H J Rumpf, U Hapke, D Fischer.   

Abstract

Many alcoholics deny abuse. To screen greater samples for alcohol dependence, short questionnaires, e.g. the CAGE or MAST are often applied. Frequently laboratory parameters [i.e. 'alcohol markers', such as carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT), gamma-glutamyl transferase or mean corpuscular volume of erythrocytes] are used to support the diagnosis of long-standing heavy alcohol consumption. In this study, the self-ratings (CAGE and MAST) were compared with the above laboratory parameters in an unselected sample of 204 patients admitted to a general hospital. The sensitivities, specificities, and positive (PPV) as well as negative predictive values of the CAGE, the MAST, and the alcohol markers were calculated along with the reported alcohol consumption or the ICD-10 diagnosis as standard. According to recent harmful alcohol consumption levels (women >225 g/week: men >350 g/week), the sensitivities and the PPVs were rather low in all tests (sensitivity <60%; PPV <50%). With the ICD-10 diagnosis as standard, the CAGE and MAST showed a rather high specificity (>95%) and PPV (about 90%). CDT revealed the best PPV of all alcohol markers (60%). However, the sensitivity of the CAGE, MAST, and the alcohol markers for the ICD-10 diagnosis was rather poor (<60%). This low sensitivity impedes the usefulness of these questionnaires and alcohol markers as screening tests for alcoholism in general hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9719403     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.alcalc.a008414

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


  4 in total

1.  A utilitarian comparison of two alcohol use biomarkers with self-reported drinking history collected in antenatal clinics.

Authors:  Philip A May; Julie M Hasken; Marlene M De Vries; Anna-Susan Marais; Julie M Stegall; Daniel Marsden; Charles D H Parry; Soraya Seedat; Barbara Tabachnick
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.143

2.  Physiological assessment of male alcoholism.

Authors:  S Chaudhury; S K Das; B S Mishra; B Ukil; P Bhardwaj; R Bhardwaj; N L Dinker
Journal:  Indian J Psychiatry       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.759

3.  Detection of alcohol consumption in suicides.

Authors:  Barbara Schneider; Axel Schnabel; Dieter Sargk; Konrad Maurer; Bernhard Weber; Tilman Wetterling
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2004-11-19       Impact factor: 5.270

4.  Clinical and Biological Risk Factors for Neuropsychological Impairment in Alcohol Use Disorder.

Authors:  Ludivine Ritz; Laurent Coulbault; Coralie Lannuzel; Céline Boudehent; Shailendra Segobin; Francis Eustache; François Vabret; Anne Lise Pitel; Hélène Beaunieux
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.