4.0 Review

Screening for alcohol problems in primary care - A systematic review

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 160, 期 13, 页码 1977-1989

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.13.1977

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Primary care physicians can play a unique role in recognizing and treating patients with alcohol problems. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of screening methods for alcohol problems in primary care. Methods: We performed a search of MEDLINE for years 1966 through 1998. We included studies that were in English, were performed in primary care, and reported the performance characteristics of screening methods for alcohol problems against a criterion standard. Two reviewers appraised all articles for methodological content and results. Results: Thirty-eight studies were identified. Eleven screened for at-risk, hazardous, or harmful drinking; 27 screened for alcohol abuse and dependence. A variety of screening methods were evaluated. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test(AUDIT) was most effective in identifying subjects with at-risk, hazardous, or harmful drinking (sensitivity, 51%-97%; specificity, 78%-96%), while the CAGE questions proved superior for detecting alcohol abuse and dependence (sensitivity, 43%-94%; specificity, 70%-97%). These 2 formal screening instruments consistently performed better than other methods, including quantity-frequency questions. The studies inconsistently adhered to methodological standards for diagnostic test research: 3 (8%) provided a full description of patient spectrum (demographics and comorbidity), 30 (79%) avoided workup bias, 12 (of 34 studies [35%]) avoided review bias, and 21 (55%) performed an analysis in pertinent clinical subgroups. Conclusions: Despite methodological limitations, the literature supports the use of formal screening instruments over other clinical measures to increase the recognition of alcohol problems in primary care. Future research in this field will benefit from increased adherence to methodological standards for diagnostic tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据