Comparison of Different Diagnostic Modalities for Helicobacter pylori Infection in Patients with Functional Dyspepsia and Peptic Ulcer Disease.

Shikhir Malhotra, Ashish Agarwal, Vibhor Tak, Kumar S Abhishek, Sarika P Kombade, Ravisekhar Gadepalli, Chhagan Lal Birda, Vandana Solanki, Poonam Elhence
{"title":"Comparison of Different Diagnostic Modalities for Helicobacter pylori Infection in Patients with Functional Dyspepsia and Peptic Ulcer Disease.","authors":"Shikhir Malhotra, Ashish Agarwal, Vibhor Tak, Kumar S Abhishek, Sarika P Kombade, Ravisekhar Gadepalli, Chhagan Lal Birda, Vandana Solanki, Poonam Elhence","doi":"10.2174/0118715265353431250604133427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are several diagnostic techniques for detecting Helicobacter pylori, the most common of which are upper GI endoscopic biopsies and stool specimens as optimal sam-ples. The goal of this study was to detect and compare H. pylori infection using the following tech-niques: rapid urease test (RUT), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), culture, histopathology, and stool antigen test (SAT), as well as to assess their validity in detecting H. pylori infection.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Patients with dyspepsia who presented to the Department of Gastroenterology's Out-patient Department and In-Patient Department between September 2021 and December 2022 were screened (Rome IV criteria). Endoscopy was used to diagnose and recruit patients with Functional dyspepsia (FD) and Peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Each biopsy sample was subjected to a battery of microbiological testing. Patients were considered infected with H. pylori if any three of five tests were found to be positive. The outcomes of all diagnostic modalities were documented and analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 171 patients were enrolled; the majority of them were male (62.60%), with a median age of 43 years. In 120 cases (70.18%), H. pylori was identified. The RUT showed the following results: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy: 91.67%, 74.51%, 89.43%, 79.17%, and 86.55%; PCR (ureC gene): 91.67%, 100%, 100%, 83.61%, and 94.15%; Histopathology: 61.67%, 100%, 100%, 52.58%, and 73.10%; and SAT: 87.50%, 94.12%, 97.22%, 76.19%, and 89.47%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study sheds light on the various diagnostic modalities and their efficacy in detecting H. pylori infection. Since several diagnostics are available for detecting H. pylori infec-tion, the question of which method to use arises. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, availability, ra-pidity in obtaining results, and availability of the test, with added value such as detection of patho-genic qualities, must all be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":101326,"journal":{"name":"Infectious disorders drug targets","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious disorders drug targets","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0118715265353431250604133427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There are several diagnostic techniques for detecting Helicobacter pylori, the most common of which are upper GI endoscopic biopsies and stool specimens as optimal sam-ples. The goal of this study was to detect and compare H. pylori infection using the following tech-niques: rapid urease test (RUT), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), culture, histopathology, and stool antigen test (SAT), as well as to assess their validity in detecting H. pylori infection.

Methodology: Patients with dyspepsia who presented to the Department of Gastroenterology's Out-patient Department and In-Patient Department between September 2021 and December 2022 were screened (Rome IV criteria). Endoscopy was used to diagnose and recruit patients with Functional dyspepsia (FD) and Peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Each biopsy sample was subjected to a battery of microbiological testing. Patients were considered infected with H. pylori if any three of five tests were found to be positive. The outcomes of all diagnostic modalities were documented and analysed.

Results: A total of 171 patients were enrolled; the majority of them were male (62.60%), with a median age of 43 years. In 120 cases (70.18%), H. pylori was identified. The RUT showed the following results: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy: 91.67%, 74.51%, 89.43%, 79.17%, and 86.55%; PCR (ureC gene): 91.67%, 100%, 100%, 83.61%, and 94.15%; Histopathology: 61.67%, 100%, 100%, 52.58%, and 73.10%; and SAT: 87.50%, 94.12%, 97.22%, 76.19%, and 89.47%, respectively.

Conclusion: The present study sheds light on the various diagnostic modalities and their efficacy in detecting H. pylori infection. Since several diagnostics are available for detecting H. pylori infec-tion, the question of which method to use arises. Thus, the sensitivity, specificity, availability, ra-pidity in obtaining results, and availability of the test, with added value such as detection of patho-genic qualities, must all be considered.

功能性消化不良和消化性溃疡患者幽门螺杆菌感染不同诊断方式的比较
背景:有几种检测幽门螺杆菌的诊断技术,其中最常见的是上消化道内镜活检和粪便标本作为最佳样本。本研究的目的是利用以下技术检测和比较幽门螺杆菌感染:快速脲酶试验(RUT)、聚合酶链反应(PCR)、培养、组织病理学和粪便抗原试验(SAT),并评估其检测幽门螺杆菌感染的有效性。方法:筛选2021年9月至2022年12月期间在消化内科门诊部和住院部就诊的消化不良患者(Rome IV标准)。内镜检查用于功能性消化不良(FD)和消化性溃疡(PUD)患者的诊断和招募。每个活检样本都进行了一系列微生物检测。如果5项检查中有3项呈阳性,则认为患者感染了幽门螺杆菌。记录和分析所有诊断方式的结果。结果:共入组171例患者;以男性居多(62.60%),年龄中位数为43岁。120例(70.18%)检出幽门螺旋杆菌。RUT结果显示:敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、准确率分别为91.67%、74.51%、89.43%、79.17%、86.55%;PCR (ureC基因):91.67%、100%、100%、83.61%、94.15%;组织病理学:61.67%、100%、100%、52.58%、73.10%;和SAT分别为87.50%,94.12%,97.22%,76.19%,89.47%。结论:本研究揭示了各种诊断方法及其检测幽门螺杆菌感染的有效性。由于有几种诊断方法可用于检测幽门螺杆菌感染,因此出现了使用哪种方法的问题。因此,敏感性、特异性、可得性、获得结果的快速性和测试的可得性,以及诸如检测致病质量等附加价值,都必须加以考虑。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信