4.0 Article

Infection with Helicobacter pylori - outcome of a cross-sectional survey

Journal

DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT
Volume 132, Issue 50, Pages 2677-2682

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-993118

Keywords

helicobacter pylori; prevalence; lifestyle; epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objective: Different information exists about the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) in Germany, ranging from 35 to 40%. Several investigations have identified factors influencing the colonization of Hp in the stomach, but their significance is still being discussed. This study aimed at determining the prevalence of Hp in the metropolitan area of Hannover and defining the impact of education and lifestyle on Hp colonization. Subjects and methods: The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. Advertisements were placed in newspapers and on the radio. Of 829 who responded and were informed of the study 35 were excluded according to predefined criteria, the remainder sent questionnaires and containers for stool samples. 579 persons returned questionnaires and stool samples, but 16 were excluded because of borderline test results. The detection of Hp was done with a test for Hp-antigens in stool (Femto Lab H. pylori-Cnx-Test, R-Biopharm). Results: Among the final 563 tested persons (322 women, 241 men; mean age 46.6 +/- 12.2 years) 21 % were Hp-positive and 79% negative. Participants with Hp were older than those without. Neither gender nor the consumption of caffeine, alcohol, nicotine and particular eating behaviour were related to Hp-status. However, persons who had incomplete or lower-level schooling were infected more often than those who had graduated from with high school. Conclusion: These results indicate that Hp-prevalence among German adults may be lower than previously published. Known associations between Hp infection and age and education were confirmed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available