4.7 Review

Accuracy of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer:: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 101, 期 4, 页码 848-863

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00528.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of the different tests aimed to detect Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: Selection of studies: assessing the accuracy of H. pylori diagnostic methods in patients with UGIB. Search strategy: electronic bibliographical searches. Data extraction: independently done by two reviewers. Data synthesis: meta-analyses of the different tests were performed combining the sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) of the individual studies. RESULTS: Studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+ and LR- (95% confidence interval (Cl)) for the different methods were: Rapid urease test (16 studies/1,417 patients): 0.67 (0.64-0.70), 0.93 (0.90-0.96), 9.6 (5.1-18.1), and 0.31 (0.22-0.44). Histology (10 studies/827 patients): 0.70 (0.66-0.74), 0.90 (0.85-0.94), 6.7 (2.5-18.4), and 0.23 (0.12-0.46). Culture (3 studies/314 patients): 0.45 (0.39-0.51), 0.98 (0.92-1.00), 19.6 (4-96), and 0.31 (0.05-1.9). Urea breath test (8 studies/520 patients): 0.93 (0.90-0.95), 0.92 (0.87-0.96), 9.5 (3.9-23.3), and 0.11 (0.07-0.16). Stool antigen test (6 studies/377 patients): 0.87 (0.82-0.91), 0.70 (0.62-0.78), 2.3 (1.4-4), and 0.2 (0.13-0.3). Serology (9 studies/803 patients): 0.88 (0.85-0.90), 0.69 (0.62-0.75), 2.5 (1.6-4.1), and 0.25 (0.19-0.33). CONCLUSION: Biopsy-based methods, such as rapid urease test, histology, and culture, have a low sensitivity, but a high specificity, in patients with UGIB. The accuracy of C-13-urea breath test remains very high in these patients. Stool antigen test is less accurate in UGIB. Although serology seems not to be influenced by UGIB, it cannot be recommended as the first diagnostic test for H. pylori infection in this setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据