ArticleBMC gastroenterology2015
Diagnostic accuracy of reused Pronto Drytest and CLOtest in the detection of Helicobacter pylori infection.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Rapid Urease Test (RUT) Device for Rapid Diagnosis ofMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Colorimetric Tests for the Detection of Infectious Diseases and Antimicrobial Resistance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnchanged substrate in a negative rapid urease test may be reused to detect Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). This could potentially reduce costs and wastage in low prevalence and resource-poor settings. We thus aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of reused Pronto Dry and CLOtest kits, comparing this to the use of new Pronto Dry test kits and histopathological evaluation of gastric mucosal biopsies.
methodsUsing a cross-sectional study design, subjects who presented for upper endoscopy due to various non-emergent causes had gastric biopsies obtained at three adjacent sites. Biopsy samples were tested for H. pylori using a reused Pronto Dry test, a reused CLOtest, a new Pronto Dry test and histopathological examination. Concordance rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy were then determined.
resultsA total of 410 subjects were recruited. The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of reused Pronto Dry tests were 72.60 % (95% CI, 61.44 - 81.51) and 94.15% (95% CI, 91.44 - 96.04) respectively. For reused CLOtests, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy were 93.15% (95% CI 85.95 - 97.04) and 98.29% (95% CI 96.52 - 99.17) respectively. There were more true positives for new and reused Pronto Dry pallets as compared to new and reused CLOtests when comparing colour change within 30 min vs. 31-60 min (P < 0.001 and P = 0.7 respectively).
conclusionNegative Pronto Dry and CLOtest kits may be reused in a low prevalence setting where cost issues remain paramount. Reused CLOtest kits have better accuracy than reused Pronto Dry tests. Reused Pronto Dry tests however have a more rapid colour change whilst maintaining diagnostic accuracy.
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.