ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2014
A diagnostic approach to patients with suspected lactose malabsorption.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Hydrogen excretion in pediatric lactose malabsorbers: relation to symptoms and the dose of lactose.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2018Article
- Clinical evaluation, biochemistry and genetic polymorphism analysis for the diagnosis of lactose intolerance in a population from northeastern Brazil.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lactose breath test (LBT) is the standard technique for diagnosis of lactose malabsorption. However, it is time-consuming, strenuous for the patient and has been reported to have low sensitivity. The lactose intolerance quick test (LIQT) measures lactase activity in duodenal biopsies and may be performed as part of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
aimThe purpose of this study was to assess the role of the LBT and LIQT in the case management of suspected lactose malabsorption.
methodsThe study group included 69 consecutive patients evaluated by the LBT followed by the LIQT. The test results were compared, and the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the LBT were calculated.
resultsMean age of the patients was 54.4 years, male/female ratio was 1:3, and mean body mass index was 25.2. None had celiac disease on duodenal biopsy. The LIQT was positive for hypolactasia in 55 patients (80 %): mild in 14 (25 %) and severe in 41 (75 %); 10 (18 %) were symptomatic during the LBT. The LBT was positive for lactose malabsorption in 32 patients (46 %). Of the 37 patients with normal findings on the LBT, 24 (65 %) had positive findings on the LIQT: 11 (30 %) mild hypolactasia, 13 (35 %) severe hypolactasia. In one case, the LBT was positive and the LIQT was negative. The LBT had a sensitivity of 56 %, specificity 93 %, positive predictive value 97 %, and negative predictive value 35 %.
conclusionsThe LBT may serve as a diagnostic screening tool for lactose malabsorption. Symptomatic patients with negative LBT results should be referred for second-line testing with the LIQT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.