1982
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(82)91579-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Questionnaire and Laboratory Tests in the Detection of Excessive Drinking and Alcoholism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
114
0
3

Year Published

1983
1983
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 373 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
4
114
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Problematic substance use: problematic alcohol consumption was assessed using the CAGE questionnaire (Mayfield et al 1974), a quick yet sensitive and specific instrument for screening alcohol use disorder (Bernadt et al 1982). Two positive responses on this instrument indicate a high probability of problematic alcohol consumption.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Problematic substance use: problematic alcohol consumption was assessed using the CAGE questionnaire (Mayfield et al 1974), a quick yet sensitive and specific instrument for screening alcohol use disorder (Bernadt et al 1982). Two positive responses on this instrument indicate a high probability of problematic alcohol consumption.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As highlighted by Ewing (1998), there is not a standard cutoff point to identify alcohol problems. Bernadt et al (1982) concluded that a test score equal or greater than two had a sensitivity of 93 % and a specificity of 76 % for the identification of problem drinkers. However, Bradley et al (1998) argued that for women, the reasonable cut point is answering positively to one or more questions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CAGE questionnaire (Mayfield et al, 1974) was included as a screen for problem drinking. Participants were defined as problem drinkers if they endorsed at least 2 out of the 4 items in the questionnaire (Bernadt et al, 1982). All the medications taken regularly by each participant were also recorded.…”
Section: Potential Confounding Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%