Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (18)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WETTERLING, T.
Right arrow Articles by FISCHER, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WETTERLING, T.
Right arrow Articles by FISCHER, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1998 Medical Council on Alcohol

research-article

COMPARISON OF CAGE AND MAST WITH THE ALCOHOL MARKERS CDT, {gamma}-GT, ALAT, ASAT AND MCV

TILMAN WETTERLING*, ROLF-DIETER KANITZ, HANS-JÜRGEN RUMPF, ULFERT HAPKE and DOROTHEA FISCHER

Department of Psychiatry, University Medical School of Lübeck Lübeck, Germany

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy I. Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. Heinrich Hoffmann Str 10, 60528 Frankfurt/Main, Germany

Received 17 February 1997; first review notified 20 February 1998; accepted 4 March 1998

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 transfemn (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 > 350g/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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Alcohol AlcoholHome page
O. SAVOLA, O. NIEMELA, and M. HILLBOM
BLOOD ALCOHOL IS THE BEST INDICATOR OF HAZARDOUS ALCOHOL DRINKING IN YOUNG ADULTS AND WORKING-AGE PATIENTS WITH TRAUMA
Alcohol Alcohol., July 1, 2004; 39(4): 340 - 345.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Alcohol AlcoholHome page
N. Siegfried, C. D. H. Parry, N. K. Morojele, and D. Wason
Profile of drinking behaviour and comparison of self-report with the CAGE questionnaire and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin in a rural Lesotho community
Alcohol Alcohol., May 1, 2001; 36(3): 243 - 248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.