The Potential Role of the Rapid Urease Test with the Sweeping Method in the Gray Zone of the Urea Breath Test after Helicobacter pylori Eradication.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Gut and Liver Pub Date : 2025-05-15 Epub Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.5009/gnl240470
Ji Hyun Kim, Ji Min Kim, Bumhee Park, Sun Gyo Lim, Sung Jae Shin, Kee Myung Lee, Gil Ho Lee, Choong-Kyun Noh
{"title":"The Potential Role of the Rapid Urease Test with the Sweeping Method in the Gray Zone of the Urea Breath Test after <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Eradication.","authors":"Ji Hyun Kim, Ji Min Kim, Bumhee Park, Sun Gyo Lim, Sung Jae Shin, Kee Myung Lee, Gil Ho Lee, Choong-Kyun Noh","doi":"10.5009/gnl240470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line <i>H. pylori</i> eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for <i>H. pylori</i> according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated <i>H. pylori</i> positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After <i>H. pylori</i> eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect <i>H. pylori</i> in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12885,"journal":{"name":"Gut and Liver","volume":" ","pages":"355-363"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12070212/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gut and Liver","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl240470","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: Although the urea breath test (UBT) is widely used as a representative monitoring test after Helicobacter pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur because of the gray zone related to its cutoff value. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the rapid urease test (RUT), the RUT with sweeping method, and the UBT, and to investigate the role of the sweeping method in the gray zone of UBT values.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 216 patients who received standard first-line H. pylori eradication treatments (n=216). All participants underwent to testing using the sweeping method and UBT on the same day. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were analyzed to compare the two methods.

Results: The sensitivity (0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002) and accuracy (0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026) of the UBT were inferior to those of the sweeping method. A total of 31 individuals tested positive for H. pylori according to the UBT, whereas 54 individuals tested positive according to the sweeping method. In the group for which the gold standard definition indicated H. pylori positivity but UBT results were negative (n=31), all individuals had a UBT value under 2.5‰. In the multivariate logistic regression model, a UBT value of 1.4‰ to 2.5‰ increased the risk of false-negative results by 6.5 times (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.077 to 20.288; p=0.001).

Conclusions: After H. pylori eradication, false-negative results can occur for individuals undergoing the UBT, primarily for values below the UBT cutoff. The RUT with the sweeping method can potentially help detect H. pylori in the gray zone of the UBT, improving diagnostic accuracy.

清除幽门螺杆菌后快速尿素酶试验在尿素呼吸试验灰色地带的潜在作用
背景/目的:虽然尿素呼气试验(UBT)被广泛用作幽门螺杆菌根除后的代表性监测试验,但由于其截止值存在灰色地带,因此可能出现假阴性结果。本研究旨在比较快速脲酶试验(rapid urease test, RUT)、带扫描法的RUT和UBT的诊断性能,并探讨扫描法在UBT值灰色地带的作用。方法:我们回顾性分析了216例接受标准的一线幽门螺杆菌根除治疗的患者(n=216)。所有参与者在同一天进行了扫描法和UBT测试。比较两种方法的敏感性、特异性和准确性。结果:UBT的灵敏度(0.537 vs 0.806, p=0.002)和准确度(0.843 vs 0.870, p=0.026)均低于扫描法。根据UBT,共有31人检测出幽门螺杆菌阳性,而根据扫地法,有54人检测出阳性。在金标准定义显示幽门螺杆菌阳性但UBT结果为阴性的组(n=31)中,所有个体的UBT值均低于2.5‰。在多变量logistic回归模型中,1.4‰~ 2.5‰的UBT值使假阴性结果的风险增加6.5倍(优势比,6.5;95%置信区间为2.077 ~ 20.288;p = 0.001)。结论:幽门螺杆菌根除后,接受UBT的个体可能出现假阴性结果,主要是在UBT截止值以下。带扫描法的RUT可能有助于在UBT的灰色区域检测幽门螺杆菌,提高诊断准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gut and Liver
Gut and Liver 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
8.80%
发文量
119
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut and Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. Gut and Liver is jointly owned and operated by 8 affiliated societies in the field of gastroenterology, namely: the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases, the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association, and the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer.
×
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