Usefulness of a Digital Tool to Improve Methodology and Reporting of Breath Tests for Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Lisandro Pereyra, Leandro Steinberg, Sofia Navar, Juan P Stefanolo, Francisco Schlottmann
{"title":"Usefulness of a Digital Tool to Improve Methodology and Reporting of Breath Tests for Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth.","authors":"Lisandro Pereyra, Leandro Steinberg, Sofia Navar, Juan P Stefanolo, Francisco Schlottmann","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goals: </strong>We aimed to determine if the use of a web-based digital tool could improve methodology and reporting of breath tests (BT).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although BT represent a noninvasive and low-cost tool for the diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), lack of standardization and poor test performance have been described.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of BT reports from 8 different gastroenterology units during the period April 2024 to July 2024. Data from the BT reports was extracted, masked, and uploaded in a digital tool that supports the entire breath test process and creates a report. Three experts in SIBO who were blinded for the test interpretation determined a diagnosis for each patient and delineated a total of 12 quality items that considered relevant to be included in a BT report. The main outcomes of the study were accuracy (ie, proportion of correct diagnoses) and quality of BT reports.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 210 BT were analyzed; the type of substrate was informed in 187 (89.0%) BT and lactulose was used in most of the studies (162/187, 86.6%). Most tests measured only hydrogen (89.5%) and 38 (18.1%) extended the BT for <90 minutes. SIBO was diagnosed in 92 (43.8%) and 79 (37.6%) patients in the original BT report and the digital tool report, respectively. As compared with the diagnosis by the expert gastroenterologists and current guidelines, the original report was accurate in 182 (86.6%) patients and the digital tool report in 210 (100%) patients (P<0.0001). Regarding quality of reporting, the original BT report had a median of 5 (3 to 8) items included and the digital tool report described a median of 9 (7 to 11) items (P<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Breath tests methodology and interpretation for the diagnosis of SIBO are heterogenous and do not comply with current guidelines. The use of a web-based digital tool specifically developed to assist the entire BT process appears to improve accuracy and quality of reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","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.0000000000002163","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Goals: We aimed to determine if the use of a web-based digital tool could improve methodology and reporting of breath tests (BT).

Background: Although BT represent a noninvasive and low-cost tool for the diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), lack of standardization and poor test performance have been described.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of BT reports from 8 different gastroenterology units during the period April 2024 to July 2024. Data from the BT reports was extracted, masked, and uploaded in a digital tool that supports the entire breath test process and creates a report. Three experts in SIBO who were blinded for the test interpretation determined a diagnosis for each patient and delineated a total of 12 quality items that considered relevant to be included in a BT report. The main outcomes of the study were accuracy (ie, proportion of correct diagnoses) and quality of BT reports.

Results: A total of 210 BT were analyzed; the type of substrate was informed in 187 (89.0%) BT and lactulose was used in most of the studies (162/187, 86.6%). Most tests measured only hydrogen (89.5%) and 38 (18.1%) extended the BT for <90 minutes. SIBO was diagnosed in 92 (43.8%) and 79 (37.6%) patients in the original BT report and the digital tool report, respectively. As compared with the diagnosis by the expert gastroenterologists and current guidelines, the original report was accurate in 182 (86.6%) patients and the digital tool report in 210 (100%) patients (P<0.0001). Regarding quality of reporting, the original BT report had a median of 5 (3 to 8) items included and the digital tool report described a median of 9 (7 to 11) items (P<0.0001).

Conclusions: Breath tests methodology and interpretation for the diagnosis of SIBO are heterogenous and do not comply with current guidelines. The use of a web-based digital tool specifically developed to assist the entire BT process appears to improve accuracy and quality of reports.

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