Detection by the CAGE of alcoholism or heavy drinking in primary care outpatients and the general population

Chan, Arthur W.K.; Pristach, Edward A.; Welte, John W.

doi:10.1016/s0899-3289(94)90157-0

Cited by 92 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have subsequently assessed the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CAGE as a screening tool for alcohol abuse/dependence 2,25,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] . Positive predictive value is important clinically, as it gives information about those who have disease among those who are screened.…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The CAGE Questionnaire for Alcohol Misuse: A Review of Reliability and Validity Studies

Dhalla

Kopeć

2007

CIM

397

253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To review the reliability and validity of the CAGE questionnaire across different patient populations and discuss its role in the detection of alcohol-related problems. Methods: The Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, and Psychinfo were searched. No systematic reviews were found on the Cochrane Database. Search of the other databases yielded one systematic review and one meta-analysis, on different aspects of CAGE. Three articles on reliability and 16 on validity of CAGE were found and used. Studies generally yielded Level II evidence. Results: CAGE has demonstrated high test-retest reliability (0.80-0.95), and adequate correlations (0.48-0.70) with other screening instruments. The questionnaire is a valid tool for detecting alcohol abuse and dependence in medical and surgical inpatients, ambulatory medical patients, and psychiatric inpatients (average sensitivity 0.71, specificity 0.90). Its performance in primary care patients has been varied, while it has not performed well in white women, prenatal women, and college students. Furthermore, it is not an appropriate screening test for less severe forms of drinking. Conclusions: CAGE is short, feasible to use, and easily applied in clinical practice. However, users should be aware of its limitations when interpreting the results. A positive screen should be followed by a proper diagnostic evaluation using standard clinical criteria.

show abstract

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The CAGE Questionnaire for Alcohol Misuse: A Review of Reliability and Validity Studies

Dhalla

Kopeć

2007

CIM

397

253

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most previous studies of the AUDIT and CAGE have evaluated these instruments as intervieweradministered questionnaires. 1,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]30,36 Three studies of interviewer-administered CAGE questionnaires in elderly VA populations similar to ours found the sensitivity of the CAGE (Ն2) for DSM-III-R lifetime alcohol abuse or depen- dence to be 78% to 82%. [10][11][12] Our sensitivity for the selfadministered CAGE (Ն2) compared with the same comparison standard was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44%, 61%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…2 The 4-item CAGE questionnaire is a brief, effective screening questionnaire for alcohol abuse and dependence. 1,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] However, the CAGE asks about alcohol problems "ever" experienced, so many patients who respond "yes" to the CAGE questions may have had alcohol problems only in the distant past. A more useful questionnaire screen would predominantly identify patients with "active" alcohol abuse or dependence, who meet diagnostic criteria, and have had at least one alcohol-related symptom in the past year.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for problem drinking

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:To compare self-administered versions of three questionnaires for detecting heavy and problem drinking: the CAGE, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and an augmented version of the CAGE. DESIGN:Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Three Department of Veterans Affairs general medical clinics.PATIENTS: Random sample of consenting male outpatients who consumed at least 5 drinks over the past year ("drinkers"). Heavy drinkers were oversampled. MEASUREMENTS:An augmented version of the CAGE was included in a questionnaire mailed to all patients. The AUDIT was subsequently mailed to "drinkers." Comparison standards, based on the tri-level World Health Organization alcohol consumption interview and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, included heavy drinking ( Ͼ 14 drinks per week typically or Ն 5 drinks per day at least monthly) and active DSM-IIIR alcohol abuse or dependence (positive diagnosis and at least one alcohol-related symptom in the past year). Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were used to compare screening questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS:Of 393 eligible patients, 261 (66%) returned the AUDIT and completed interviews. For detection of active alcohol abuse or dependence, the CAGE augmented with three more questions (AUROC 0.871) performed better than either the CAGE alone or AUDIT (AUROCs 0.820 and 0.777, respectively). For identification of heavy-drinking patients, however, the AUDIT performed best (AUROC 0.870). To identify both heavy drinking and active alcohol abuse or dependence, the augmented CAGE and AUDIT both performed well, but the AUDIT was superior (AUROC 0.861). CONCLUSIONS:For identification of patients with heavy drinking or active alcohol abuse or dependence, the self-administered AUDIT was superior to the CAGE in this population.

show abstract

“…Surprisingly, possible alcohol abuse was predicted by sex and country only, no childhood adversity found entrance into the risk factor model. It is possible, that the CAGE-questions, even if widely used in psychiatry, partly measure a self critical reflection on one's own alcohol consume rather than abuse (Chan et al 1994). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of childhood adversities and their possible consequences in Poland and Germany

Hardt

Dragan²,

Schultz

et al. 2010

J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: How children grow up differs from country to country. The aim of the present investigation was to compare childhood experiences, family characteristics, and psychological features during the post World War II period in Poland and Germany.Subject and Methods: A questionnaire regarding various childhood experiences and family circumstances was administered to two samples, one each in Poland and Germany (n = 500 each) via Internet. Comparisons between Poland and Germany were performed by use of ANOVA and X²-tests, logistic regressions were performed to compare the effects of risk factors.Results: Probands from Poland described almost all aspects of their lives, their families, and their childhoods as having been better than did probands from Germany. Risk factor for suicide attempts were childhood physical abuse, and for alcohol abuse gender and childhood sexual abuse in both countries.Conclusion: There is some evidence for idealisation of the past in Poland, which might be due to the fact that almost 90% of the Poles were Christians. Germans seem to be more realistic in their views of the past but possibly deny their personal weaknesses. RESULTSWe present the results in four groups: (1) demographics and general background, (2) family problems (the image of the mother, the father, and their

show abstract

Detection by the CAGE of alcoholism or heavy drinking in primary care outpatients and the general population

Cited by 92 publications

References 31 publications

The CAGE Questionnaire for Alcohol Misuse: A Review of Reliability and Validity Studies

The CAGE Questionnaire for Alcohol Misuse: A Review of Reliability and Validity Studies

Screening for problem drinking

Comparison of childhood adversities and their possible consequences in Poland and Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About