Cherpitel C J
Western Consortium for Public Health, Alcohol Research Group, Berkeley, California, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Aug;26(2):158-66. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70146-x.
To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of several alcohol screening instruments (CAGE, brief MAST, AUDIT, TWEAK, History of Trauma Scale) and other measures (breath alcohol analyzer reading and reporting of drinking before the event), in an emergency department population, against International Classification of Disease, revision 10 (ICD-10) criteria for harmful drinking and for alcohol dependence from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) by gender, race, and injury status.
A probability sample of patients was subjected to breath alcohol analysis and interviewed (N = 1,330.)
University of Mississippi Medical Center.
Overall, the TWEAK and AUDIT methods were the most sensitive, identifying 84% and 81%, respectively, of patients who were positive for alcohol dependence. Sensitivity was not as high for females, whites, or the noninjured. Sensitivities for the breath alcohol analysis and self-reported drinking were 20% and 29%, respectively.
These data suggest that the effectiveness of screening instruments varies by gender, race, and injury status and that positive breath alcohol analysis readings and reporting of drinking before the event are not good indicators of alcohol dependence in this population.
在急诊科人群中，根据性别、种族和损伤状况，对照国际疾病分类第10版（ICD - 10）中有害饮酒和酒精依赖的标准（源自综合国际诊断访谈（CIDI）），评估几种酒精筛查工具（CAGE、简易MAST、AUDIT、TWEAK、创伤史量表）以及其他测量方法（呼气酒精分析仪读数和事件发生前饮酒情况报告）的敏感性和特异性。
对患者进行概率抽样，进行呼气酒精分析并访谈（N = 1330）。
密西西比大学医学中心。
总体而言，TWEAK和AUDIT方法最为敏感，分别识别出84%和81%酒精依赖呈阳性的患者。女性、白人或未受伤者的敏感性没那么高。呼气酒精分析和自我报告饮酒情况的敏感性分别为20%和29%。
这些数据表明，筛查工具的有效性因性别、种族和损伤状况而异，且呼气酒精分析读数呈阳性以及事件发生前饮酒情况报告并非该人群酒精依赖的良好指标。
