Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Ewing (1984)
Detecting alcoholism. The CAGE questionnaire.JAMA, 252 14
C. Cherpitel (1995)
Analysis of cut points for screening instruments for alcohol problems in the emergency room.Journal of studies on alcohol, 56 6
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB (1999)
Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study.JAMA, 282
R. Spitzer, K. Kroenke, Janet Williams (1999)
Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire.JAMA, 282 18
D. Mayfield, Gail McLeod, Patricia Hall (1974)
The CAGE questionnaire: validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument.The American journal of psychiatry, 131 10
A. Dervaux, F. Baylé, X. Laqueille, M. Bourdel, M. Leborgne, J. Olié, M. Krebs (2006)
Validity of the CAGE questionnaire in schizophrenic patients with alcohol abuse and dependenceSchizophrenia Research, 81
In Reply: We agree with Drs Dervaux and Laqueille that using a score of 2 or more for the CAGE questionnaire increases specificity while decreasing sensitivity when screening patients for alcohol abuse or dependence.1,2 In a study of alcohol dependence, higher specificity may be more desirable. However, the purpose of our study was to investigate changes in alcohol use behaviors and alcohol-related problems before and after combat deployment, using the metrics of heavy weekly drinking, binge drinking, and alcohol-related problems defined by the Patient Health Questionnaire.3 The CAGE screening questions in our study were used to adjust for confounding related to the existence of potential alcohol-related problems prior to the baseline questionnaire. We elected to use a more sensitive definition of 1 or more affirmative responses on the CAGE, which was the cutoff established when the questions were first developed and has been deemed useful in other studies,4,5 to improve our ability to identify individuals possibly at increased risk for the 3 primary outcomes studied. Thus, we were careful to use the term potential alcohol dependence because of the sensitive criteria involved in using a tool for screening (rather than a thorough clinical evaluation). Although it is not directly related to the primary goals of this study, we agree that it is of interest to examine the robustness of our findings using a more specific definition with the CAGE items. We compared the results in our article (using ≥1 affirmative responses to the 4-item CAGE questionnaire) with the results when we defined CAGE as positive after only 2 or more affirmative responses. Although redefining our measure did reduce the number of positive individuals identified in the follow-up population (n = 48 481) from 8836 (18.2%) to 7490 (15.5%), the overall study findings were unchanged. For both active duty and Reserve or National Guard personnel, when using 2 or more as the cutoff, the adjusted measures of association for combat deployment changed by less than 1% across all outcomes. Moreover, the odds ratios for potential alcohol dependence using the score of 2 or more changed by less than 3% for both populations across all outcomes. Back to top Article Information Financial Disclosures: None reported. References 1. Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P. The CAGE questionnaire: validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J Psychiatry. 1974;131(10):1121-11234416585PubMedGoogle Scholar 2. Dervaux A, Bayle FJ, Laqueille X, et al. Validity of the CAGE questionnaire in schizophrenic patients with alcohol abuse and dependence. Schizophr Res. 2006;81(2-3):151-15516314077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 3. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB.Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737-174410568646PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4. Ewing JA. Detecting alcoholism: the CAGE questionnaire. JAMA. 1984;252(14):1905-19076471323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 5. Cherpitel CJ. Analysis of cut points for screening instruments for alcohol problems in the emergency room. J Stud Alcohol. 1995;56(6):695-7008558901PubMedGoogle Scholar
JAMA – American Medical Association
Published: Dec 10, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.