Premium
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Carbohydrate‐Deficient Transferrin, γ‐Glutamyltransferase, and Mean Cell Volume in a General Practice Population
Author(s) -
Meerkerk G.J.,
Njoo K. H.,
Bongers I. M. B.,
Trienekens P.,
Oers J. A. M.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
alcoholism: clinical and experimental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 153
eISSN - 1530-0277
pISSN - 0145-6008
DOI - 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1999.tb04224.x
Subject(s) - carbohydrate deficient transferrin , diagnostic accuracy , receiver operating characteristic , population , medicine , positive predicative value , transferrin , gamma glutamyltransferase , significant difference , diagnostic test , gastroenterology , alcohol , predictive value , alcohol consumption , pediatrics , biology , environmental health , biochemistry , enzyme
In certain populations, the biological alcohol marker carbohydrate‐deficient transferrin (CDT) is known to have a high diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDT, γ‐glutamyltransferase (γ‐GT), and mean cell volume (MCV) in a general practice population; more specifically, to ascertain whether CDT is a better tool than γ‐GT and MCV for (early) recognition of excessive alcohol use. To represent the general practice situation as realistically as possible, three different drinking patterns are defined: irregular excessive, regular excessive, and very excessive. From a sample of 524 men from seven general practices, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the three markers for the three drinking patterns were compared, and receiver‐operating characteristic analysis was used to compare differences between the markers. The results indicate that drinking patterns do influence the (difference in) diagnostic accuracy. CDT has a higher diagnostic accuracy for all three drinking patterns than y‐GT and higher predictive values for hazardous [(ir)regular excessive] drinking patterns than MCV. However, receiver‐operating characteristic analyses failed to demonstrate a significant difference between these patterns. It is concluded that the performance of all tests is too low to be useful for screening procedures in a general population; however, some tests may be useful for case finding. CDT seems to be the best alcohol marker available, although the difference between CDT and MCV is small.