The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for Alcohol Abuse Using CAGE Scores and Likelihood Ratios
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the CAGE (acronym referring to four questions, see below) questionnaire in discriminating between medicine outpatients with and without an alcohol abuse or dependence disorder. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design of a sample of consecutive patients who received both the alcohol module of the diagnostic interview schedule and the CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener) screening questionnaire. SETTING: The outpatient medical practice of an urban university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All patients 18 years or older who signed a consent form approved by the university's institutional review board. MEASUREMENT: Calculation of the sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and likelihood ratio for CAGE scores of 0 to 4. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the sample group met criteria for a history of alcohol abuse or dependence. A CAGE score of 2 or more was associated with a sensitivity and specificity of 74% and 91%. The calculated area under the ROC curve was 0.89, whereas the likelihood ratios for CAGE scores of 0 to 4 were 0.14, 1.5, 4.5, 13, and 100, respectively. These ratios were associated with posterior probabilities for an abuse or dependence disorder of 7%, 46%, 72%, 88%, and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can improve their ability to estimate a patient's risk for an alcohol abuse or dependence disorder using likelihood ratios for CAGE scores.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Robins, L. N. (1981) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1981.01780290015001 · Cited by 5,219
Detecting Alcoholism: The CAGE Questionnaire
Ewing, J. A. (1984) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1984.03350140051025 · Cited by 3,005
(1975) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197507312930513 · Cited by 1,017
Cited by
Bush, K. (1998) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789 · Cited by 6,196
Clinical Characteristics of Women With a History of Childhood Abuse: Unhealed Wounds
McCauley, J. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540410040028 · Cited by 904
McGee, S. (2002) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10750.x · Cited by 894
Saitz, R. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp042262 · Cited by 599
Acceptance-based treatment for smoking cessation
Gifford, E. V., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., Antonuccio, D. O., Piasecki, M. M., Rasmussen-Hall, M. L., & Palm, K. M. (2004) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80015-7 · Cited by 499
Metadata
- Authors
- Buchsbaum, D. G., Buchanan, R. G., Centor, R. M., Schnoll, S. H., & Lawton, M. J.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1991-11-15
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 774-777
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2092106039
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for Alcohol Abuse Using CAGE Scores and Likelihood Ratios. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-115-10-774
- The paper
- Buchsbaum, D. G., Buchanan, R. G., Centor, R. M., Schnoll, S. H., & Lawton, M. J. (1991). Screening for Alcohol Abuse Using CAGE Scores and Likelihood Ratios. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-115-10-774
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.