Literature DB >> 7698686

Serology for Helicobacter pylori compared with symptom questionnaires in screening before direct access endoscopy.

M A Mendall1, R P Jazrawi, J M Marrero, N Molineaux, J Levi, J D Maxwell, T C Northfield.   

Abstract

This prospective study aimed to compare serology for Helicobacter pylori with two, symptom questionnaires in screening patients before direct access endoscopy. Methods were compared in terms of the number of endoscopies saved and pathology missed in 315 patients referred to a gastroenterology unit by 65 local GPs. The serology used was based on an acid glycine extract of H pylori. One in-house questionnaire was based on the Glasgow dyspepsia (GLADYS) system and the other questionnaire was that reported by Holdstock et al. A cut off point of 6.3 U/ml for H pylori serology was selected for screening patients (97% sensitive and 75% specific). Serology was combined with a history of NSAID usage in determining who should have endoscopy. For the in-house questionnaire, a cut off score of more than 8 out of a possible maximum of 18 was chosen, after prior evaluation in 118 patients referred for direct access endoscopy (the sensitivity for detection of peptic ulcer was 88%, specificity 61%). A cut off score of more than 412 was used for the Holdstock questionnaire. In patients under 45 years, serology detected more peptic ulcers than the in-house questionnaire and the Holdstock questionnaire (27/28 v 24/28, NS and v 20/28, p < 0.05 respectively). The Holdstock questionnaire saved significantly more endoscopies than the other two methods (76/149 v 57/149 for the in-house questionnaire, p = 0.05 and 59/149 for serology, p = 0.05). In all age groups combined, serology was significantly better than the in-house and Holdstock questionnaires at detecting peptic ulcers and gastric cancer (61/63, 52/63, p<0.02, and 50/63, p<0.01 respectively). But serology saved significantly fewer endoscopies (89/315, 135/315, p<0.005, and 119/315, p<0.05 respectively). Serology was inferior to the Holdstock questionnaire at detecting severe oesophagitis. It is concluded that serology is the method of choice in screening before direct access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in those under 45 years. It best combines a high sensitivity for peptic ulcer disease with a large reduction in unnecessary negative endoscopies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7698686      PMCID: PMC1382438          DOI: 10.1136/gut.36.3.330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  6 in total

1.  Open-access upper alimentary endoscopy.

Authors:  M W Gear; S P Wilkinson
Journal:  Br J Hosp Med       Date:  1989-05

2.  Prospective testing of a scoring system designed to improve case selection for upper gastrointestinal investigation.

Authors:  G Holdstock; M Harman; D Machin; C Patel; R S Lloyd
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 3.  Gastroduodenal complications of chronic NSAID therapy.

Authors:  D Y Graham; J L Smith
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Screening dyspepsia by serology to Helicobacter pylori.

Authors:  G M Sobala; J E Crabtree; J A Pentith; B J Rathbone; T M Shallcross; J I Wyatt; M F Dixon; R V Heatley; A T Axon
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-07-13       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Open-access endoscopy service for general practitioners.

Authors:  G Holdstock; M Wiseman; C A Loehry
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1979-02-17

6.  Can preliminary screening of dyspeptic patients allow more effective use of investigational techniques?

Authors:  P M Davenport; A G Morgan; A Darnborough; F T De Dombal
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-01-19
  6 in total
  13 in total

Review 1.  Randomised controlled trials in primary care: case study.

Authors:  S Wilson; B C Delaney; A Roalfe; L Roberts; V Redman; A M Wearn; F D Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-07-01

Review 2.  How should Helicobacter pylori positive dyspeptic patients be managed?

Authors:  N J Talley
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Relation between Helicobacter pylori infection and gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes.

Authors:  S Rosenstock; L Kay; C Rosenstock; L P Andersen; O Bonnevie; T Jørgensen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Comparison of serum, salivary, and rapid whole blood diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori and their validation against endoscopy based tests.

Authors:  T G Reilly; V Poxon; D S Sanders; T S Elliott; R P Walt
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Serodiagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: comparison and correlation between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and rapid serological test results.

Authors:  T S Chen; F Y Chang; S D Lee
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 6.  Management of uninvestigated dyspepsia: review and commentary.

Authors:  Anthony Axon
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 7.  What have we learned from recent dyspepsia trials?

Authors:  J J Ofman
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2000-12

8.  [Helicobacter eradication: an expensive Sisyphus task].

Authors:  H J Wildgrube
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-07-15

Review 9.  Blood tests in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection. Italian Helicobacter pylori Study Group.

Authors:  D Vaira; J Holton; M Menegatti; F Landi; C Ricci; A Ali; L Gatta; S Farinelli; C Acciardi; B Massardi; M Miglioli
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 10.  Testing for Helicobacter pylori in primary care: trouble in store?

Authors:  R Foy; J M Parry; L Murray; C B Woodman
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.