Stool Antigen Test for Helicobacter Pylori Infection in Adults : A Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000002102
Marcel Silva Luz, Caroline Tianeze de Castro, Fabian Fellipe Bueno Lemos, Gabriel Reis Rocha, Gabriel Lima Correa Santos, Samuel Luca Rocha Pinheiro, Luis Guilherme de Oliveira Silva, Mariana Santos Calmon, Márcio Vasconcelos Oliveira, Kádima Nayara Teixeira, Dulciene Maria de Magalhães Queiroz, Fabrício Freire de Melo
{"title":"Stool Antigen Test for Helicobacter Pylori Infection in Adults : A Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.","authors":"Marcel Silva Luz, Caroline Tianeze de Castro, Fabian Fellipe Bueno Lemos, Gabriel Reis Rocha, Gabriel Lima Correa Santos, Samuel Luca Rocha Pinheiro, Luis Guilherme de Oliveira Silva, Mariana Santos Calmon, Márcio Vasconcelos Oliveira, Kádima Nayara Teixeira, Dulciene Maria de Magalhães Queiroz, Fabrício Freire de Melo","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The stool antigen test (SAT) is a convenient noninvasive option for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori ) infection. However, despite having been previously evaluated, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding the comparative accuracy of conventional and rapid SATs utilizing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies in adults. Here, we perform a thorough statistical synthesis to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional and rapid SATs for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection in adults.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted independent searches through July 25, 2023, for studies evaluating the accuracy of SAT against a reference standard. We assessed methodological quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and calculated overall accuracy measures using the bivariate random-effect model. We also conducted subgroup analyses based on model and assessment technique, and Spearman correlation analysis to investigate a possible threshold effect. We generated summary receiver operating characteristic curves to assess heterogeneity and evaluated publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Conventional SAT demonstrated superior sensitivity (92.19% vs 85.79%), specificity (92.93% vs 91.18%), likelihood ratios (LR+ 9.68 vs 8.16; LR- 0.10 vs 0.15), and area under the curve (0.958 vs 0.940) compared with rapid SAT. Notably, the diagnostic odds ratio for conventional SAT (114.70) significantly outperformed rapid SAT (diagnostic odds ratio: 57.72). Correlation analysis revealed no threshold effect and summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed consistent accuracy for both tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study establishes evidence of the superior diagnostic accuracy of conventional SATs over rapid SATs for detecting H. pylori infection in adults. Also, we provide valuable insights into the impact of using monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies and different assessment techniques on diagnostic accuracy measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"393-404"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The stool antigen test (SAT) is a convenient noninvasive option for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori ) infection. However, despite having been previously evaluated, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding the comparative accuracy of conventional and rapid SATs utilizing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies in adults. Here, we perform a thorough statistical synthesis to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional and rapid SATs for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection in adults.

Materials and methods: We conducted independent searches through July 25, 2023, for studies evaluating the accuracy of SAT against a reference standard. We assessed methodological quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and calculated overall accuracy measures using the bivariate random-effect model. We also conducted subgroup analyses based on model and assessment technique, and Spearman correlation analysis to investigate a possible threshold effect. We generated summary receiver operating characteristic curves to assess heterogeneity and evaluated publication bias.

Results: Conventional SAT demonstrated superior sensitivity (92.19% vs 85.79%), specificity (92.93% vs 91.18%), likelihood ratios (LR+ 9.68 vs 8.16; LR- 0.10 vs 0.15), and area under the curve (0.958 vs 0.940) compared with rapid SAT. Notably, the diagnostic odds ratio for conventional SAT (114.70) significantly outperformed rapid SAT (diagnostic odds ratio: 57.72). Correlation analysis revealed no threshold effect and summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed consistent accuracy for both tests.

Conclusion: Our study establishes evidence of the superior diagnostic accuracy of conventional SATs over rapid SATs for detecting H. pylori infection in adults. Also, we provide valuable insights into the impact of using monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies and different assessment techniques on diagnostic accuracy measures.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信