Literature DB >> 8651160

Do commercial serological kits for Helicobacter pylori infection differ in accuracy? A meta-analysis.

C T Loy1, L M Irwig, P H Katelaris, N J Talley.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of common commercial serological kits for Helicobacter pylori and to ascertain factors affecting accuracy.
METHODS: A comprehensive MEDLINE and manual search strategy was used to identify all articles comparing two or more kits. Each article was critically appraised for sample characteristics, study design, and data handling. The data comparing accuracy of the kits was analyzed by standard statistical methods as well as summary receiver operator characteristic curves (sROCs). A sROC also was used to estimate overall test accuracy and to identify factors affecting the measurement of accuracy.
RESULTS: The 21 studies identified were of varying quality, but our analyses suggested that different commercial kits did not have significantly different accuracy. Overall, at a sensitivity of 85%, specificity was estimated to be 79%. Test accuracy measured was significantly higher in studies with smaller proportions of infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence in the literature to suggest that any one of the common commercial serological kits is more accurate than any other. The overall accuracy of these kits may not be adequate for clinical decision-making in all patient groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8651160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  36 in total

Review 1.  The urea breath test for Helicobacter pylori infection: taking the wind out of the sails of endoscopy.

Authors:  C A Fallone; S J Veldhuyzen van Zanten; N Chiba
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-02-08       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Blood, urine, stool, breath, money, and Helicobacter pylori.

Authors:  D Vaira; N Vakil
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Helicobacter pylori infection.

Authors:  Yvan Vandenplas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Managing dyspepsia in a primary care setting.

Authors:  A Kenneth Musana; Steven H Yale; Kevin A Lang
Journal:  Clin Med Res       Date:  2006-12

5.  Current concepts in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection: the Maastricht III Consensus Report.

Authors:  P Malfertheiner; F Megraud; C O'Morain; F Bazzoli; E El-Omar; D Graham; R Hunt; T Rokkas; N Vakil; E J Kuipers
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Non-invasive testing for Helicobacter pylori in patients hospitalized with peptic ulcer hemorrhage: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Ashish Atreja; Alex Z Fu; Madhusudan R Sanaka; John J Vargo
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-07-07       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Evaluation of commercially available Helicobacter pylori serology kits: a review.

Authors:  R J Laheij; H Straatman; J B Jansen; A L Verbeek
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Helicobacter pylori Infection: Options for Testing and Treatment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2012-09

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

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

10.  Exploring the cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening to prevent gastric cancer in China in anticipation of clinical trial results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Yeh; Karen M Kuntz; Majid Ezzati; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.