4.6 Review

Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests in children: review of the literature from 1999 to 2009

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 15-25

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-009-1033-x

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; Diagnosis; Children; Histology; Serology; Urea breath tests; Stool

资金

  1. Oxoid (Ely) Ltd. Thermo Fisher Scientific [24,000 (sic)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The array of tests that can be used for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection is large, and it can be confusing to define which test to use particularly in children where results may not be comparable to those obtained in adult patients. Using PubMed, we reviewed the English literature from January 1999 to May 2009 to identify articles that determined sensitivity and specificity of H. pylori invasive and non-invasive diagnostic tests in children. We excluded articles that presented a review of the literature, abstracts, case reports, or series where children's results could not be separated from adult populations. Of the tissue based methods, rapid urease tests have better sensitivity than histology to detect presence of H. pylori; however, histology can detect the pathology associated with disease including gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, and other conditions that could be the cause of the child's symptoms. Culture of gastric tissues or stool has 100% specificity but sensitivity is low. Of the serologic tests, immunoblot has the best sensitivity. The urea breath tests have > 75% sensitivity for detection of H. pylori before and after treatment. Immunoassays in stool using monoclonal antibodies have > 95% sensitivity for detection of H. pylori before and after treatment. PCR testing can be performed in tissue and stool samples and can detect genes associated to antibiotic resistance. In summary, the current commercial non-invasive tests have adequate sensitivity and specificity for detecting the presence of H. pylori; however, endoscopy with histopathology is the only method that can detect H. pylori and lesions associated with the infection.

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

4.6
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