Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31743632›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2020

Breath Tests for the Non-invasive Diagnosis of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

Giuseppe Losurdo, Gioacchino Leandro, Enzo Ierardi, Francesco Perri, Michele Barone, Mariabeatrice Principi, Alfredo Di Leo

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Critical Review: The Past, Present, and Future of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO).JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Modern concepts of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Giuseppe LosurdoSection of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare, B ari, Italy.
Gioacchino LeandroGastroenterology Unit, National Institute of Research for Gastroenterology "Saverio De Bellis", Castellana Grotte, Bari, Italy.
Enzo IerardiSection of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare, B ari, Italy.
Francesco PerriDigestive Endoscopy Unit, National Institute of Research "Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza", San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy.
Michele BaroneSection of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare, B ari, Italy.
Mariabeatrice PrincipiSection of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare, B ari, Italy.
Alfredo Di LeoSection of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University "Aldo Moro", Piazza Giulio Cesare, B ari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsSmall intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) diagnosis is usually based on non-invasive breath tests (BTs), namely lactulose BT (LBT) and glucose BT (GBT). However, divergent opinions and problems of parameter standardization are still controversial aspects. We aim to perform a meta-analysis to analyze diagnostic performance of LBT/GBT for SIBO diagnosis.

methodsWe searched in main literature databases articles in which SIBO diagnosis was achieved by LBT/GBT in comparison to jejunal aspirate culture (reference gold standard). We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratios. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn and pooled areas under the curve were calculated.

resultsWe selected 14 studies. Pooled sensitivity of LBT and GBT was 42.0% and 54.5%, respectively. Pooled specificity of LBT and GBT was 70.6% and 83.2%, respectively. When delta over baseline cut-off > 20 H

conclusionsGBT seems to work better than LBT. A cut-off of delta H2 expired other than and lower than > 20 ppm shows a slightly better result than > 20 ppm. BTs demonstrate the best effectiveness in patients with surgical reconstructions of gastrointestinal tract.

Indexed as

Breath testsGlucoseHydrogenLactuloseSIBO

Identifiers

PMID31743632
PMCPMC6955189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.