Evidence Hub

New fecal test for non-invasive Helicobacter pylori detection: A diagnostic accuracy study

Iannone A, Giorgio F, Russo F, Riezzo G, Girardi B, Pricci M, Palmer SC, Barone M et al.

World journal of gastroenterology, 2018

294 participants

Abstract

AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of a new fecal test for detecting Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), using13C-urea breath test as the reference standard, and explore bacterial antibiotic resistance.

METHODS: We conducted a prospective two-center diagnostic test accuracy study. We enrolled consecutive people≥ 18 years without previous diagnosis of H. pylori infection, referred for dyspepsia between February and October 2017. At enrollment, all participants underwent 13C-urea breath test. Participants aged over 50 years were scheduled to undergo upper endoscopy with histology. Participants collected stool samples 1-3 d after enrollment for a new fecal investigation (THD fecal test). The detection of bacterial 23S rRNA subunit gene indicated H. pylori infection. We also used the index diagnostic test to examine mutations conferring resistance to clarithromycin and levofloxacin. Independent investigators analyzed index test and reference test standard results blinded to the other test findings. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR), together with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS: We enrolled 294 consecutive participants (age: Median 37.0 years, IQR: 29.0-46.0 years; men: 39.8%). Ninety-five (32.3%) participants had a positive13C-urea breath test. Twenty-three (7.8%) participants underwent upper endoscopy with histology, with a full concordance between…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 294 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free