Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Diagnosing alcoholism in high-risk drinking drivers: Comparing different diagnostic procedures with estimated prevalence of hazardous alcohol use
Autore:
Korzec, A; Bar, M; Koeter, MWJ; De Kieviet, W;
Indirizzi:
St Lucas Andreas Hosp, Dept Psychiat, NL-1006 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands StLucas Andreas Hosp Amsterdam Netherlands NL-1006 AE rdam, Netherlands Amsterdam Inst Addict Res, Amsterdam, Netherlands Amsterdam Inst Addict Res Amsterdam Netherlands Amsterdam, Netherlands St Lucas Andreas Hosp, Dept Clin Chem, Amsterdam, Netherlands St Lucas Andreas Hosp Amsterdam Netherlands hem, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Titolo Testata:
ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM
fascicolo: 6, volume: 36, anno: 2001,
pagine: 594 - 602
SICI:
0735-0414(200111/12)36:6<594:DAIHDD>2.0.ZU;2-5
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
CARBOHYDRATE-DEFICIENT TRANSFERRIN; GAMMA-GLUTAMYL-TRANSPEPTIDASE; HEAVY DRINKING; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DRUNKEN DRIVERS; CONSUMPTION; SERUM; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; DEPENDENCY;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Clinical Medicine
Life Sciences
Citazioni:
44
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Korzec, A St Lucas Andreas Hosp, Dept Psychiat, POB 9243, NL-1006 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands St Lucas Andreas Hosp POB 9243 Amsterdam Netherlands NL-1006 AE
Citazione:
A. Korzec et al., "Diagnosing alcoholism in high-risk drinking drivers: Comparing different diagnostic procedures with estimated prevalence of hazardous alcohol use", ALC ALCOHOL, 36(6), 2001, pp. 594-602

Abstract

In several European countries, drivers under influence (DUI), suspected ofan alcohol use disorder (AUD, 'alcoholism') are referred for diagnostic examination. The accuracy of diagnostic procedures used in diagnosing AUD in the DUI population is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare three prevalence estimates of AUD based on a structured clinical interview (SCID),a restrictive diagnostic procedure (RDP) and usual clinical diagnostic procedure (CDP), with a prevalence estimate based on sensitivity and specificity data of biological markers of excessive use of alcohol in non-judicial samples. The latter unbiased estimate provides an external yardstick againstwhich the biased patient-based prevalence estimates in this special samplecan be evaluated. The unbiased estimate derived from sensitivity and specificity data resulted in a prevalence estimate of excessive use of alcohol between 74 and 82%, which is much higher than the three diagnostic procedures. SCID identified maximally 5% of alcoholics found with the unbiased estimate. RDP identified greater than or equal to 31% of the unbiased estimate, while CDP identified greater than or equal to 60% of the unbiased estimate. The high chance of false positive diagnosis, however, makes CDP unacceptable in the legal context of AUD diagnosis in DUI populations.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 27/09/20 alle ore 06:12:56