Screening for alcohol misuse in older people

Alcohol screening instruments in elderly male: a population-based survey in metropolitan São Paulo, Brazil

“…28 The majority of studies involving the elderly did not investigate the efficacy of the TWEAK and the T-ACE. The most commonly evaluated instruments were the CAGE, 10,16,[29][30][31] the AUDIT, 32,33 and the MAST-G (Michigan Alcohol Screening Test -Geriatric Version). 16 A review on instruments for detecting alcohol abuse and dependence in the elderly reported that the MAST-G and particularly the CAGE seem appropriate, while the AUDIT and the MAST do not seem adequate for screening the elderly in clinical settings.…”

“…The most commonly evaluated instruments were the CAGE, 10,16,[29][30][31] the AUDIT, 32,33 and the MAST-G (Michigan Alcohol Screening Test -Geriatric Version). 16 A review on instruments for detecting alcohol abuse and dependence in the elderly reported that the MAST-G and particularly the CAGE seem appropriate, while the AUDIT and the MAST do not seem adequate for screening the elderly in clinical settings. 5 Another study reported that the CAGE and the MAST-G are unsuited to identify early stage (hazardous or harmful) alcohol use among the elderly, and that the AUDIT may prove more useful in identifying early stage problem drinking, although the MAST-G and the CAGE have been shown to outperform the AUDIT in detecting alcohol abuse and dependence in elderly males.…”

“…[12][13][14][15] Luttrell et al found that the CAGE had a low sensitivity (13%) with a cut-off score of two, although displaying a high specificity (98%). 16 A Brazilian study with a sample of people aged ≥ 60 found a positive predictive value of the CAGE (30.8%), a sensitivity of 75%, and a specificity of 74.3%. 17 This study was conceived due to the lack of information regarding the screening of alcohol-related problems in Brazilian elderly.…”

Drinking patterns and adherence to “low-risk” guidelines among community-residing older adults

“…(5) Only a single measure of alcohol-associated negative consequences and/or potential problems was utilized. MAST and MAST-G demonstrate favorable validity measures (see Storgaard et al, 1994 for review); however, some discrepancies with other assessments (e.g., Moore et al, 2002; Luttrell et al, 1997) suggest future examination should leverage multiple indices. Further, while employment of an age-specific measure (MAST-G) constituted a strength of the current work, it precluded direct comparison of scores between age groups.…”