Girela E, Villanueva E, Hernandez-Cueto C, Luna J D
Department of Legal Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain.
Alcohol Alcohol. 1994 May;29(3):337-43.
We have compared the individual sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the CAGE questionnaire, plasma levels of ethanol and acetate, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), and glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb A1c) in a group of 50 healthy non-alcoholic controls and 31 patients with non-alcoholic liver disease (Group I), and in a second group of 40 alcoholic patients (Group II). Taken individually, the CAGE questionnaire was the most efficient (96% sensitive and 92% specific), followed by plasma levels of acetate (74% sensitive and 85% specific), MCV (64% sensitive and 91% specific) and GGT (72% sensitive and 80% specific). Hb A1c did not show any statistically significant difference between alcoholics and non-alcoholics and thus is of no use as a screening test for the diagnosis of alcoholism. Furthermore, we attempted to design a discrimination procedure to separate alcoholics from controls and patients with non-alcoholic hepatic diseases using a combination of the most promising tests. The most powerful discrimination model was constructed with the four questions of the CAGE questionnaire. The percentage of correct classifications using this model was 99% from Group I (specificity) and 90% from Group II (sensitivity). The CAGE questionnaire was itself so useful as a discriminant in our sample that no increased diagnostic efficacy was noticed on adding any of the other tests. Using objective variables (MCV, acetate and GGT) as discriminants, we could correctly classify 96% of subjects from Group I (specificity) and only 64% from Group II (sensitivity).
我们比较了CAGE问卷、乙醇和乙酸盐的血浆水平、平均红细胞体积(MCV)、γ-谷氨酰转移酶(GGT)以及糖化血红蛋白(Hb A1c)在50名健康非酒精对照组和31名非酒精性肝病患者(第一组),以及40名酒精性患者(第二组)中的个体敏感性、特异性和预测价值。单独来看,CAGE问卷效率最高(敏感性96%,特异性92%),其次是乙酸盐的血浆水平(敏感性74%,特异性85%)、MCV(敏感性64%,特异性91%)和GGT(敏感性72%,特异性80%)。Hb A1c在酗酒者和非酗酒者之间未显示出任何统计学上的显著差异,因此作为酒精中毒诊断的筛查试验并无用处。此外,我们试图设计一种判别程序,通过结合最有前景的检测方法来区分酗酒者与对照组以及非酒精性肝病患者。最强大的判别模型是用CAGE问卷的四个问题构建的。使用该模型正确分类的百分比在第一组中为99%(特异性),在第二组中为90%(敏感性)。在我们的样本中,CAGE问卷本身作为一种判别方法非常有用,以至于添加任何其他检测方法后,诊断效率都没有提高。使用客观变量(MCV、乙酸盐和GGT)作为判别指标,我们可以正确分类第一组中96%的受试者(特异性),而在第二组中仅为64%(敏感性)。