Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCUSKER, M.T.
Right arrow Articles by CATALAN, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCUSKER, M.T.
Right arrow Articles by CATALAN, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Q J Med 2002; 95: 591-595
© 2002 Association of Physicians

Hazardous and harmful drinking: a comparison of the AUDIT and CAGE screening questionnaires

M.T. McCUSKER1,, J. BASQUILLE1, M. KHWAJA1, I.M. MURRAY-LYON2 and J. CATALAN3

From the 1 Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health Trust Substance Misuse Service, London, 2 Department of Gastroenterology, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, London, and 3 Department of Psychological Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK

Received 29 August 2001 and in revised form 16 May 2002

Background: Hazardous and harmful use of alcohol remains a public health concern, and many general hospital admissions are alcohol-related.

Aim: To compare the CAGE and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) questionnaires in screening general medical admissions for harmful or hazardous drinking.

Design: Prospective questionnaire-based study.

Methods: Both questionnaires were administered, and demographic data collected.

Results: One hundred and three patients were included. Of these, 36% were identified by the AUDIT to be drinking hazardously or harmfully, and 22% were identified as CAGE cases. All CAGE cases were also AUDIT cases.

Discussion: As the CAGE and the AUDIT are designed to identify different populations, it is not surprising that significantly fewer cases were identified using the CAGE. The AUDIT identifies not just the harmful drinkers detected by the CAGE, but also hazardous drinkers, who have not yet reached that level of harm. As drinkers at an earlier stage may respond better to interventions aimed at reducing their consumption, the AUDIT is preferable in clinical practice.

Address correspondence to Ms M.T. McCusker, Department of Addictive Behaviour & Psychological Medicine, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 0RE. e-mail: m.mccusker{at}sghms.ac.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GutHome page
C Gluud
Mortality from cirrhosis: lack of progress over the last 35 years
Gut, November 1, 2005; 54(11): 1523 - 1526.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
J. Maskalyk
Drinking and driving
Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 4, 2003; 168(3): 313 - 313.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.