Comparison of Screening Instruments for Alcohol Problems Between Black and White Emergency Room Patients from Two Regions of the Country

A number of brief screening instruments to identify alcohol dependence exist, but the validity of these instruments across ethnic groups or regions of the country is not well established. The sensitivity and specificity of a number of standard screening instruments (CAGE, brief MAST, AUDIT, TWEAK, and RAPS), as well as other measures (History of Trauma Scale, breathalyzer reading, self-reported drinking before the event, and consuming five or more drinks at a sitting at least monthly) are compared against ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence between probability samples of Black and White emergency room patients in Santa Clara County, CA (n= 716) and in Jackson, MS (n= 1330). Variability in the sensitivity of screening instruments among current drinkers was found to be greater between samples for both Blacks and Whites, than for Blacks compared with Whites within the same sample. The AUDIT, TWEAK, and RAPS seemed to perform well by gender and injury status for both Blacks and Whites in the two samples, and no significant differences were found in the performance of these instruments across sample sites. To evaluate the influence of regional differences in alcohol dependence on differences found in the performance of screening instruments, using logistic regression with the simultaneous entry of demographic variables (age, gender, ethnicity, injury status, and site) and drinking variables (breathalyzer reading, serf-reported drinking before the event, and drinking five or more drinks at a sitting at least monthly) to predict alcohol dependence in a merged sample of these patients (Jackson vs. Santa Clara) site was not found to be significant Data suggest that, whereas region of the country may not be important in predicting alcohol dependence in emergency room populations, regional differences in the performance of screening instruments for alcohol dependence may exist, even when ethnicity is taken into account Given distinct regional differences in drinking patterns and problems in the U.S., further research on commonly used screening instruments is needed to determine those screeners most efficient for identifying problem drinking.     

Brief screening questionnaires to identify problem drinking during pregnancy: a systematic review

Aims Although prenatal screening for problem drinking during pregnancy has been recommended, guidance on screening instruments is lacking. We investigated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of brief alcohol screening questionnaires to identify problem drinking in pregnant women. Methods Electronic databases from their inception to June 2008 were searched, as well as reference lists of eligible papers and related review papers. We sought cohort or cross‐sectional studies that compared one or more brief alcohol screening questionnaire(s) with reference criteria obtained using structured interviews to detect ‘at‐risk’ drinking, alcohol abuse or dependency in pregnant women receiving prenatal care. Results Five studies (6724 participants) were included. In total, seven instruments were evaluated: TWEAK (Tolerance, Worried, Eye‐opener, Amnesia, Kut down), T‐ACE [Take (number of drinks), Annoyed, Cut down, Eye‐opener], CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye‐opener], NET (Normal drinker, Eye‐opener, Tolerance), AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), AUDIT‐C (AUDIT‐consumption) and SMAST (Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test). Study quality was generally good, but lack of blinding was a common weakness. For risk drinking sensitivity was highest for T‐ACE (69‐88%), TWEAK (71–91%) and AUDIT‐C (95%), with high specificity (71–89%, 73–83% and 85%, respectively). CAGE and SMAST performed poorly. Sensitivity of AUDIT‐C at score ≥3 was high for past year alcohol dependence (100%) or alcohol use disorder (96%) with moderate specificity (71% each). For life‐time alcohol dependency the AUDIT at score ≥8 performed poorly. Conclusion T‐ACE, TWEAK and AUDIT‐C show promise for screening for risk drinking, and AUDIT‐C may also be useful for identifying alcohol dependency or abuse. However, their performance as stand‐alone tools is uncertain, and further evaluation of questionnaires for prenatal alcohol use is warranted.     

Performance of screening instruments for alcohol problems in the ER: a comparison of Mexican-Americans and Mexicans in Mexico

The performance of standard screening instruments and alternate measures against ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) and DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th revision) criteria for alcohol dependence and separately for harmful drinking/abuse were compared between probability samples of 1511 emergency room (ER) patients from three hospitals in Pachuca, Mexico, and 586 Mexican-American ER patients in Santa Clara County, California. Sensitivity was highest for the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), TWEAK, and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS) for alcohol dependence; sensitivity was highest for holding five or more drinks for harmful drinking/abuse in both samples. All instruments performed better for alcohol dependence than for abuse/harmful drinking. Arrests for drinking and driving performed better in Santa Clara than in Pachuca, while a positive Breathalyzer reading and reporting drinking prior to the event performed better in Pachuca; both were significantly more sensitive among the injured compared to the noninjured in Pachuca. The data suggest that instrument performance may be similar between those in Pachuca and those in the low acculturation group in Santa Clara, relative to those scoring higher on acculturation. While standard screening instruments appear to work reasonably well in both samples for alcohol dependence, variation across gender, injury, and acculturation subgroups suggests attention should be given to choosing the "best" instrument.     

Performance of Screening Instruments for Alcohol Problems in the ER: A Comparison of Mexican- Americans and Mexicans in Mexico*

The performance of standard screening instruments and alternate measures against ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) and DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th revision) criteria for alcohol dependence and separately for harmful drinking/abuse were compared between probability samples of 1511 emergency room (ER) patients from three hospitals in Pachuca, Mexico, and 586 Mexican-American ER patients in Santa Clara County, California. Sensitivity was highest for the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), TWEAK, and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS) for alcohol dependence; sensitivity was highest for holding five or more drinks for harmful drinking/abuse in both samples. All instruments performed better for alcohol dependence than for abuse/harmful drinking. Arrests for drinking and driving performed better in Santa Clara than in Pachuca, while a positive Breathalyzer reading and reporting drinking prior to the event performed better in Pachuca; both were significantly more sensitive among the injured compared to the noninjured in Pachuca. The data suggest that instrument performance may be similar between those in Pachuca and those in the low acculturation group in Santa Clara, relative to those scoring higher on acculturation. While standard screening instruments appear to work reasonably well in both samples for alcohol dependence, variation across gender, injury, and acculturation subgroups suggests attention should be given to choosing the “best” instrument.     

The TWEAK is weak for alcohol screening among female Veterans Affairs outpatients

BACKGROUND: The optimal brief questionnaire for alcohol screening among female patients has not yet been identified. This study compared the performance of the TWEAK (tolerance, worried, eye-opener, amnesia, cutdown), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the AUDIT Consumption (AUDIT-C) as self-administered screening tests for hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence among female Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients. METHODS: Women were included in the study if they received care at VA Puget Sound and completed both a self-administered survey containing the AUDIT and TWEAK screening questionnaires and subsequent in-person interviews with the Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were computed for each screening questionnaire compared with two interview-based comparison standards: (1) active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence and (2) hazardous drinking and/or active DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence, the more appropriate target for primary care screening. RESULTS: Of 393 women who completed screening questionnaires and interviews, 39 (9.9%) met diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, and 89 (22.7%) met criteria for hazardous drinking or alcohol abuse or dependence. The TWEAK had relatively low sensitivities (0.62 and 0.44) but adequate specificities (0.86 and 0.89) for both interview-based comparison standards, even at its lowest cut-point (>/=1). The AUDIT and AUDIT-C were superior, with the following areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for active alcohol abuse or dependence and hazardous drinking and/or active alcohol abuse or dependence, respectively: AUDIT, 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.95] and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91); AUDIT-C, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.94); and TWEAK, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The TWEAK has low sensitivity as an alcohol-screening questionnaire among female VA outpatients and should be evaluated further before being used in other female primary care populations. The three-item AUDIT-C was the optimal brief alcohol-screening questionnaire in this study.     

Fast alcohol consumption evaluation: a screening instrument adapted for French general practitioners

BACKGROUND: To meet the needs of French general practitioners (GPs), we created a short (5 questions) interview/screening test for alcohol-related problems that is similar to AUDIT in terms of (1) test values and (2) identification of 3 groups: (a) abstainers and low-risk drinkers; (b) heavy drinkers; and (c) alcohol abusers or showing dependence. METHOD: Nine questions (from AUDIT, CAGE, TWEAK, Five-shot Questionnaire) were given systematically to their patients (aged 18 or more) by 41 volunteer GPs. Before the consultation, patients confidentially completed the AUDIT questionnaire in the waiting room. After the consultation, an addiction specialist evaluated each patient's alcohol consumption and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse and dependence and these were used as gold standards. RESULTS: The analysis included 564 patient records and used stepwise logistic regression to select 7 questions, from which a second selection resulted in a 5-item questionnaire. These questions are: AUDIT questions 1 (Frequency) and 2 (Usual quantity), CAGE questions 2 (Annoyed) and 4 (Eye-opener), and TWEAK question 5 (Black-out), with each question scored 0 to 4. High levels of sensitivity and specificity were obtained for each diagnosis (sensitivity 75%-87.8%; specificity 74%-95.8%). CONCLUSION: FACE is an appropriate screening method for French general practitioners.     

Gender differences in the performance of a computerized version of the alcohol use disorders identification test in subcritically injured patients who are admitted to the emergency department

OBJECTIVE: The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) has been recommended as a screening tool to detect patients who are appropriate candidates for brief, preventive alcohol interventions. Lower AUDIT cutoff scores have been proposed for women; however, the appropriate value remains unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the optimal AUDIT cutpoint for detecting alcohol problems in subcritically injured male and female patients who are treated in the emergency department (ED). An additional purpose of the study was to determine whether computerized screening for alcohol problems is feasible in this setting. METHODS: The study was performed in the ED of a large, urban university teaching hospital. During an 8-month period, 1205 male and 722 female injured patients were screened using an interactive computerized lifestyle assessment that included the AUDIT as an embedded component. World Health Organization criteria were used to define alcohol dependence and harmful drinking. World Health Organization criteria for excessive consumption were used to define high-risk drinking. The ability of the AUDIT to classify appropriately male and female patients as having one of these three conditions was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Criteria for any alcohol use disorder were present in 17.5% of men and 6.8% of women. The overall accuracy of the AUDIT was good to excellent. At a specificity >0.80, sensitivity was 0.75 for men using a cutoff of 8 points and 0.84 for women using a cutoff of 5 points. Eighty-five percent of patients completed computerized screening without the need for additional help. CONCLUSIONS: Different AUDIT scoring thresholds for men and women are required to achieve comparable sensitivity and specificity when using the AUDIT to screen injured patients in the ED. Computerized AUDIT administration is feasible and may help to overcome time limitations that may compromise screening in this busy clinical environment.     

The epidemiology of alcohol use in Australian women: findings from a national survey of women''s drinking

This is the first study of alcohol use, alcohol problems and alcohol dependence in a general population sample of Australian women using a standardized screening instrument developed by the World Health Organization, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Sixty-six percent of a sample of 6000 women randomly selected from the electoral rolls responded to the questionnaire. The majority of women (87%) had drunk alcohol at some time in their lives, while 82% had consumed alcohol within the past 12 months. Of the women who currently drank alcohol, 34% were classified as hazardous drinkers, 4% as harmful drinkers and 1% as dependent according to AUDIT definitions. Using a cut-off score of 8 for the AUDIT, 8% of women were classified as currently having a drinking pattern of hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption. These women were more likely to be younger (17-44 years), single, or living in a de facto relationship. The results of this survey provide important data which can be used as a bench-mark to measure changes in women's drinking behaviour and drinking related problems.     

Performance of Screening Instruments for Identifying Alcohol Dependence in the General Population, Compared with Clinical Populations

Screening instruments for problem drinking have been developed in clinical populations, and little is known of their performance in the general population. Sensitivity and specificity of the CAGE and the TWEAK for ICD-10 and/or DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence are compared among those sampled from the southern region in the 1995 National Alcohol Survey ( n = 776). and from emergency room (ER) (n = 1327) and primary care clinic ( n = 767) samples in Jackson, MS. Sensitivity of the CAGE was higher in both the ER (85%) and primary care (82%) samples than in the general population (75%), although differences were not significant, and this held for males and females alike. Sensitivity of the TWEAK was lower in the general population sample (83%) than in the ER sample (89%), but higher than in the primary care sample (75%). In the general population, sensitivity of both screeners was better (although not significantly so) among those making an ER or primary care visit during the last year than among those not doing so, with the largest difference found for the CAGE (85% vs. 65%, respectively). In a merged sample of the three sites, the interaction of site by screening instrument was not a significant predictor of alcohol dependence for either the CAGE or TWEAK. Data suggest that screening instruments may not perform as well in the general population as in some clinical populations, with more variation apparent across groups for some screeners than for others. Although further analysis is necessary to explore this issue further, attention should be given to selection of the best instrument for use in a given population.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for excessive drinking in primary care: reliability and validity of a French version

BACKGROUND: Excessive drinking is a major problem in Western countries. AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) is a 10-item questionnaire developed as a transcultural screening tool to detect excessive alcohol consumption and dependence in primary health care settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to validate a French version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). METHODS: We conducted a validation cross-sectional study in three French-speaking areas (Paris, Geneva and Lausanne). We examined psychometric properties of AUDIT as its internal consistency, and its capacity to correctly diagnose alcohol abuse or dependence as defined by DSM-IV and to detect hazardous drinking (defined as alcohol intake >30 g pure ethanol per day for men and >20 g of pure ethanol per day for women). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and Receiver Operator Characteristic curves. Finally, we compared the ability of AUDIT to accurately detect "alcohol abuse/dependence" with that of CAGE and MAST. RESULTS: 1207 patients presenting to outpatient clinics (Switzerland, n = 580) or general practitioners' (France, n = 627) successively completed CAGE, MAST and AUDIT self-administered questionnaires, and were independently interviewed by a trained addiction specialist. AUDIT showed a good capacity to discriminate dependent patients (with AUDIT > or =13 for males, sensitivity 70.1%, specificity 95.2%, PPV 85.7%, NPV 94.7% and for females sensitivity 94.7%, specificity 98.2%, PPV 100%, NPV 99.8%); and hazardous drinkers (with AUDIT > or =7, for males sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 79.9%, PPV 55.0%, NPV 82.7% and with AUDIT > or =6 for females, sensitivity 81.2%, specificity 93.7%, PPV 64.0%, NPV 72.0%). AUDIT gives better results than MAST and CAGE for detecting "Alcohol abuse/dependence" as showed on the comparative ROC curves. CONCLUSIONS: The AUDIT questionnaire remains a good screening instrument for French-speaking primary care.     

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): establishment of cut-off scores in a hospitalized Chinese population

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use has become a problem for Taiwanese society. Developing a brief, rapid, and flexible tool to screen an individual's alcohol consumption is important. Many countries use the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to screen for harmful and dangerous alcohol consumption. The psychometric characteristics of the AUDIT have not been examined in a Chinese population. METHODS: Determination of the cutoff points for the AUDIT Chinese version included three stages: translating the questionnaire, expert review and formal testing on subjects. Participants (N = 112) were recruited from a medical research center of four gastroenterology wards in northern Taiwan. RESULTS: The cutoff point for participants diagnosed as "harmful users" was an AUDIT score of 8. The sensitivity was 0.96, specificity was 0.85, positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.85, negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.96, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.93. The cutoff point for participants diagnosed as "alcohol dependent" was an AUDIT score of 11. The sensitivity was 0.94, specificity was 0.63, PPV was 0.31, NPV was 0.98, and AUROC was 0.84. Furthermore, males had significantly higher AUDIT and AUDIT-C scores. Males were also significantly more likely than females to be diagnosed as harmful users or alcohol dependents. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the AUDIT gave the same cutoff point for harmful alcohol use by Taiwanese individuals as that set by the World Health Organization. This finding shows that this cutoff point is generally appropriate in screening for problem alcohol consumption. Moreover, the cutoff AUDIT score of 11 for alcohol dependence provides a reference for screening in Taiwanese clinics.     

Use of the TWEAK Test in Screening for Alcoholism/ Heavy Drinking in Three Populations

TWEAK is an acronym for Tolerance (T ₁ number of drinks to feel high; T₂, number of drinks one can hold), Worry about drinking, Eye-opener (morning drinking), Amnesia (blackouts), and Cut down on drinking (K/C). In this study, two versions ( T ₁ and T ₂) of the TWEAK were part of a questionnaire used to detect alcoholism or heavy alcohol intake in three populations, namely, alcoholics in treatment, patients in two outpatient clinics, and the general population. Similar to the CAGE and the 10-item brief MAST, the TWEAK identified most known alcoholics, but the TWEAK had a higher sensitivity and specificity than the CAGE and B-MAST in detecting alcoholism/heavy drinking in the clinical and general populations. Different cut-off values for tolerance ( T ₁ and T ₂) are recommended for screening different populations.     

Alcohol use disorders among emergency department-treated older adolescents: a new brief screen (RUFT-Cut) using the AUDIT, CAGE, CRAFFT, and RAPS-QF

BACKGROUND: Early identification of alcohol use disorders (AUD) among emergency department (ED)-treated patients is important for facilitating intervention and further evaluation outside EDs. A number of brief screening instruments have been developed for identifying patients with AUD, but it is not clear whether they are practical and perform well with older adolescents in an ED setting. This study contrasted four brief screening instruments for detecting DSM-IV-defined AUD and tested a newly developed brief screen for use among ED-treated older adolescents. METHODS: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the CAGE, the CRAFFT, and a modified RAPS-QF were given to 93 alcohol-using older adolescents (55% men; aged 18-20 years) in an ED. Receiver operator characteristic analyses were used to evaluate the performance of brief screens against the criterion of a lifetime DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependence diagnosis. RESULTS: Of existing instruments, the AUDIT had the best overall performance in identifying AUD (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 78%). A new, shorter screening instrument composed of two AUDIT items, two CRAFFT items, and one CAGE item (RUFT-Cut) performed as well as the AUDIT (sensitivity, 82%; specificity, 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Among existing alcohol screening instruments, the AUDIT performed best for identifying ED-treated older adolescents with alcohol use disorders. The RUFT-Cut is a brief screening instrument for AUD that shows promise for identifying ED-treated older adolescents who are in need of intervention or further evaluation. Future research should focus on use of the RUFT-Cut in other settings with larger, more diverse samples of adolescents.     

Screening Trauma Patients for Alcoholism According to NLAAA Guidelines with Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Questions

Drinking pattern criteria (drinking frequency and number of drinks per occasion) issued by the National Institute on Alcohol and Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) to screen primary practice patients for alcohol problems were evaluated in 1216 injured patients treated in a regional trauma center. Vehicular crash victims predominated (50.2%, of whom 64.5% were drivers), followed by victims of violence (31.2%) and nonviolent-injury victims (18.5%). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questions #1 (drinking frequency) and #2 (drinks/day) were used to assess the patients for current alcohol dependence (CAD). AUDIT responses roughly approximating NIAAA guidelines (high threshold: drinks ≥ 4 times/week, ≥ 5 drinks/day) and those indicating less drinking (low threshold: drinks ≥ 2-3 times/week, ≥3 drinks/day) were chosen. Comparisons were made relative to sensitivity and specificity of responses in detecting CAD. When low threshold responses were used for either question, sensitivity to detect CAD increased overall (#1 from 0.53 to 0.80, #2 from 0.62 to 0.88) as well as among the subgroups of patients, whereas specificity remained high or at acceptable levels overall (#1 from 0.95 to 0.82, #2 from 0.92 to 0.71) and among the subgroups of patients. Study findings suggest that, among injured drivers and other groups of trauma center patients, lesser amounts of drinking should be used as screening criteria for CAD than are used for the general population.     

Screening Trauma Patients With the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and Biomarkers of Alcohol Use

Background:  Alcohol screening and brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol-related morbidity in injured patients. Use of self-report questionnaires such as the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is recommended as the optimum screening method. We hypothesized that the accuracy of screening is enhanced by combined use of the AUDIT and biomarkers of alcohol use in injured patients.
Methods:  The study was conducted in the emergency department of a large, urban, university hospital. Patients were evaluated with the AUDIT, and blood sampled to determine carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, gamma-glutamyl-transferase, and mean corpuscular volume. Alcohol problems were defined as presence of ICD-10 criteria for dependence or harmful use, or high-risk drinking according to World Health Organization criteria (weekly intake >420 g in males, >280 g in females). Screening accuracy was determined using Receiver Operating Characteristic curves.
Results:  There were 787 males and 446 females in the study. Median age was 33 years. The accuracy of the AUDIT was good to excellent, whereas all biomarkers performed only fairly to poorly in males, and even worse in females. At a specificity >0.80, sensitivity for all biomarkers was <0.43, whereas sensitivity for the AUDIT was 0.76 for males and 0.81 for females. The addition of biomarkers added little additional discriminatory information compared to use of the AUDIT alone.
Conclusions:  Screening properties of the AUDIT are superior to %CDT, MCV, and GGT for detection of alcohol problems in injured patients and are not clinically significantly enhanced by the use of biomarkers.     

Hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in primary care.

Increasing emphasis has been placed on the detection and treatment of hazardous and harmful drinking disorders, particularly among patients who are seen in primary care settings. In this review, we summarize the epidemiology and health-related effects of hazardous and harmful drinking and discuss current methods for their detection and treatment. Hazardous drinking is defined as a quantity or pattern of alcohol consumption that places patients at risk for adverse health events, while harmful drinking is defined as alcohol consumption that results in adverse events (e.g., physical or psychological harm). Prevalence estimates range from 4% to 29% for hazardous drinking and from less than 1% to 10% for harmful drinking. Data from several recent large prospective studies suggest that alcohol consumption in quantities consistent with hazardous or harmful drinking may increase risk for adverse health events, such as hemorrhagic stroke and breast cancer. Existing screening instruments, such as the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) or the CAGE questionnaire, while excellent for detecting alcohol abuse or dependence, should not be used alone to screen for hazardous and harmful drinking. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is currently the only instrument specifically designed to identify hazardous and harmful drinking. Treatment of these disorders in the form of brief interventions can be successfully accomplished in primary care settings, as demonstrated by a number of well-conducted randomized trials. Given its proven efficacy in the primary care setting, we recommend routine application of this treatment approach.     

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) in a routine workplace health examination

BACKGROUND: Only a few studies on workplaces have examined the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) as screening instruments for the early identification of elevated and risky levels of alcohol consumption. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of AUDIT, CDT, and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) in a routine health examination (alcohol screening) in the workplace. METHODS: The study, carried out over 16 months in a large workplace in the transport sector, was part of an on-going controlled study. Employees who came to the company health service for a routine health examination were offered the opportunity to undergo an alcohol screening and check their alcohol habits. RESULTS: Of the 570 subjects who participated, 105 (18.4%) screened positive according to AUDIT, CDT, or both. Only 7.6% of the persons who screened positive did so according to both instruments. If GGT had been included as a screening instrument, the proportion of positive results would have increased to 22.0%. If we had only used AUDIT in the screening process, the proportion of positives would have fallen by nearly half. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that AUDIT and CDT are complementary instruments for alcohol screening in a routine workplace health examination, and each has value for identifying a different segment of the risky drinking population.     

Brief screening instruments for risky drinking in the outpatient psychiatry clinic

In this pilot study, we compared two brief screening instruments, the T-ACE (Tolerance, Annoyed, Cut down, Eye-opener) and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), with a clinician interview and structured clinical interview (SCID) to determine if they improved identification of risky drinking in a psychiatry clinic compared to clinician interviews. Sixteen of 50 subjects satisfied DSM-IV criteria for lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence on the SCID, and four, all T-ACE positive, were listed "correctly" in the chart as having an alcohol problem. With an SCID gold standard, risky drinking was identified with sensitivities and specificities of 0.88 and 0.59 for the T-ACE and 0.63 and 0.85 for the AUDIT. Brief screening instruments improved the identification of risky drinking in a psychiatry clinic.     

Detecting Alcohol-Related Problems in Developing Countries: A Comparison of 2 Screening Measures in India

Background: There is inadequate recognition of alcohol misuse as a public health issue in India. Information on screening measures is critical for prevention and early intervention efforts. This study critically evaluated the full and shorter versions of the AUDIT and RAPS4‐QF as screening measures for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in a community sample of male drinkers in Goa, India. Methods: Data from male drinking respondents in a population study on alcohol use patterns and sexual risk behaviors in randomly selected rural and urban areas of North Goa are reported. Overall, 39% (n = 743) of the 1899 screened men, age 18 to 49, reported consuming alcohol in the last 12 months. These current drinkers were administered the screening measures as part of detailed interviews on drinking patterns and AUD symptoms. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted for each combination of screening measure and criterion (alcohol dependence or any AUD). Reliability and correlations among the 4 measures were also examined. Results: All 4 measures performed well with area under the curves of at least 0.79. The full screeners that included both drinking patterns and problem items (the AUDIT and the RAP4‐QF) performed better than their shorter versions (the AUDIT‐C and the RAPS4) in detecting AUDs. Performance of the AUDIT and RAPS4‐QF improved with lowered and raised thresholds, respectively, and alternate cut‐off scores are suggested. Scores on the full measures were significantly correlated (0.80). Reliability estimates for the AUDIT measures were higher than those for the RAPS4 measures. Conclusions: All measures were efficient at detecting AUDs. When screening for alcohol‐related problems among males in the general population in India, cut‐off scores for screeners may need to be adjusted. Selecting an appropriate screening measure and cut‐off score necessitates careful consideration of the screening context and resources available to confirm alcohol‐related diagnoses.