ArticlePloS one2016
Performances of Four Helicobacter pylori Serological Detection Kits Using Stool Antigen Test as Gold Standard.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between diabetes and gastric cancer: results from the Stomach Cancer Pooling Project Consortium.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2022Pooled it
- Calibrating multiplex serology for Helicobacter pylori.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Article
- Dietary intake of vitamin C and gastric cancer: a pooled analysis within the Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Article
- Dietary intake of copper and gastric cancer: a pooled analysis within the Stomach cancer Pooling (StoP) Project.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Testing Accuracy forMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Diabetes Mellitus and Gastric Cancer: Correlation and Potential Mechanisms.Journal of diabetes research · 2023Review
- Helicobacter pylori Infection, Its Laboratory Diagnosis, and Antimicrobial Resistance: a Perspective of Clinical Relevance.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Clinical Performance of the Automated LIAISON® MeridianBioMed research international · 2020Article
- Diffuse redness in linked color imaging is useful for diagnosing currentJournal of general and family medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to determine the performances of four Helicobacter pylori serological detection kits in different target groups, using Amplified IDEIA™ Hp StAR™ as gold standard. Kits studied were Rapid Immunochromatoghraphic Hexagon, Helicoblot 2.1, an EIA IgG kit and EIA IgA kit.
methodsStool and blood samples were collected from 162 apparently healthy participants (control) and 60 Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
resultsThe performances of the four serological detection kits were found to be affected by gender, age, health status and ethnicity of the participants. In the control group, the Helicoblot 2.1 kit had the best performance (AUC = 0.85; p<0.05, accuracy = 86.4%), followed by EIA IgG (AUC = 0.75; p<0.05, accuracy = 75.2%). The Rapid Hexagon and EIA IgA kits had relatively poor performances. In the T2DM subgroup, the kits H2.1 and EIA IgG had best performances, with accuracies of 96.5% and 93.1% respectively. The performance of EIA IgG improved with adjustment of its cut-off value.
conclusionThe performances of the detection kits were affected by various factors which should be taken into consideration.
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.