ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2022
Performance and Interpretation of Hydrogen and Methane Breath Testing Impact of North American Consensus Guidelines.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting the Gut-Bone Axis with Prebiotics, Probiotics, Synbiotics, and Postbiotics: From Mechanistic Plausibility to Clinical Bone Outcomes.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Hydrogen Breath Test Dynamics Reflect Intestinal Fermentation Rather than Systemic Inflammation: A Data-Driven Diagnostic Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hydrogen and Methane Breath Test: The Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association Monograph.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Review
- Extended hydrogen breath test analysis for optimized diagnosis of SIBO-positive IBS patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF SMALL INTESTINAL BACTERIAL OVERGROWTH: AN OFFICIAL POSITION PAPER FROM THE BRAZILIAN FEDERATION OF GASTROENTEROLOGY.Arquivos de gastroenterologia · 2025Review
- Refined Lactulose Hydrogen Breath Test for Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Subgrouping Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Low and High Breath Hydrogen.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2025Article
- The role of intestinal gases in pediatric functional constipation: a narrative review of pathophysiology and emerging therapeutics.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- High-quality identification of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) originating from breath.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024Article
- Changes in the negative logarithm of end-tidal hydrogen partial pressure indicate the variation of electrode potential in healthy Japanese subjects.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Ability of lactulose breath test results to accurately identify colorectal polyps through the measurement of small intestine bacterial overgrowth.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHydrogen and methane breath tests (HMBT) are widely used clinical investigations but lack standardization. To address this, the North American Consensus (NAC) group published evidence-based recommendations for HMBT.
aimsTo evaluate results obtained using NAC recommendations for HMBT, compared to retrospective data that utilized guidelines previously recommended.
methodsHMBT data from 725 patients referred for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) and/or carbohydrate malabsorption (CM) testing were analyzed. Data were compared regarding dose of substrate for SIBO testing (16 vs. 10 g lactulose, and 50 vs. 75 g glucose) and the effect of post-ingestion sampling period for malabsorption testing. The effect of different recommended cut-off values for SIBO were examined.
resultsSubstrate dose did not affect methane production. 10 g lactulose significantly reduced positive SIBO results compared to 16 g lactulose (42 vs. 53%, p = 0.04). 75 g glucose significantly increased positive results compared to 50 g glucose (36 vs. 22%, p = 0.04). Provoked symptoms were significantly more prevalent in patients testing positive by both North American Consensus and Ledochowski cut-off values. 34.5% of patients tested positive for CM at 180-min compared to 28% at 120-min (not significant, p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: 10 g lactulose substrate produces fewer positive SIBO results than 16 g lactulose, while 75 g glucose dose produces more positive SIBO results than 50 g. Performing CM breath tests for 180 min increases number of positive results when compared to 120 min. SIBO cut-off timings require further investigation, but our findings broadly support the NAC recommendations for SIBO and CM testing.
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.