ArticleJundishapur journal of microbiology2014
Evaluation of an Iranian Home-made Helicobacter pylori Stool Antigen ELISA Kit.
Article in Jundishapur journal of microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Highly clarithromycin-resistant Helicobacter pylori infection in asymptomatic children from a rural community of Cajamarca-Peru.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Comparative Evaluation of RUT, PCR and ELISA Tests for Detection of Infection with Cytotoxigenic H. pylori.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2016Article
- Study of biofilm formation in C57Bl/6J mice by clinical isolates of Helicobacter pylori.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection by biopsy-based tests requires invasive sampling. Non-invasive methods such as the H. pylori stool-antigen (HpSA) test may be the best alternative for diagnosis of active infection. However, due to the presence of antigenic-diversity among the strains, various commercial tests have shown some discrepancies in different geographical-areas.
objectivesThis study evaluates a homemade HpSA kit developed by using the H. pylori antigens from Iranian-isolates for detection of H. pylori in the stool of infected patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsBased on the endoscopic features and/or a rapid-urease test (RUT), 30 child and 50 adult patients, were recruited. From these candidates, three biopsies for RUT, culture and histology, and a stool-sample, were obtained. Patients were considered as H. pylori-positive if culture alone or RUT plus histology were found to be positive. Presence of H. pylori antigens in their stools was detected by the homemade HpSA test and an imported HpSA kit (Immundiagnostik, Germany).
resultsUsing the biopsy-based tests with RUT, histology and culture, 53% (16/30) of children were diagnosed as H. pylori-positive while using the imported kit 57% and the homemade kit 50% of the candidates showed positive results. Also by the biopsy-based tests, 54% of the adults were diagnosed as H. pylori-positive while by the homemade kit 56% showed positive results. Considering the biopsy-based tests as the gold standard, sensitivity and specificity for the imported kit was 94% and 86%, respectively, while the mean sensitivity and specificity for the homemade kit was 96% and 98%, respectively.
conclusionsThe homemade kit, compared with the imported kit and biopsy-proven tests may be a valid and reliable method for determining the presence of H. pylori infection in Iran.
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.