2000
DOI: 10.1097/00000374-200008000-00010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enhanced Clinical Utility of ??-CDT in a General Population

Abstract: Compared with single markers, a significant improvement of sensitivity was obtained when the combination of both markers was used, especially in females.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A significant association with age, body mass index, and smoking was observed for the three markers. The results presented here for γ-CDT, together with its values of sensitivity and specificity among the general population (23), suggest the usefulness of this new combined marker in clinical practice.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…A significant association with age, body mass index, and smoking was observed for the three markers. The results presented here for γ-CDT, together with its values of sensitivity and specificity among the general population (23), suggest the usefulness of this new combined marker in clinical practice.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…(3) As usual, in general practice, our sample consisted of a high percentage of women (56.0%). This is higher than in most other studies, e.g., Chen et al (2003) 33.2%, Hermansson et al (2000) 37.0%, and Sillanaukee et al (2000b) 42.9%. Some studies excluded women altogether (Meerkerk et al, 1999;Mikkelsen et al, 1998;Mundle et al, 1999b).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 65%
“…(2) In most previous studies, there are exclusions of patients with liver disease (Anton et al, 2002;Chen et al, 2003;Harasymiw et al, 2004;Mundle et al, 2000;Reynaud et al, 2000), patients on medications that affect the hepatic system (Mundle et al, 1999b(Mundle et al, , 2000Myrick et al, 2001;Sillanaukee et al, 2000aSillanaukee et al, , 2000b, or patients who are pregnant (Anton et al, 2002;Reynaud et al, 2000;Sillanaukee et al, 2000aSillanaukee et al, , 2000b. Although the potential impairment of the enzyme system is a logical reason for exclusion, those studies with exclusions cannot claim either a representative sample or a more realistic estimation of the practical use of the markers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The average amount of pure alcohol (g/day) was calculated as follows: pure alcohol (g) at any one time x frequency of alcohol use (1/day). Alcohol consumption was categorized as abstainers/light drinkers (< 15 g of pure alcohol/day), moderate drinkers (15–40 g/day), and heavy drinkers (> 40 g/day) [26]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%