ArticleSichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition2022
[Sensitivity Comparison Experiment of Four Testing Methods for
Article in Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research advances of the establishment and characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Usefulness of Molecular Methods forInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To measure with standard microbiology methods the sensitivity of 4 commonly used testing methods for Methods: With the Hp standard strain (SS1) as the reference, colony forming units (CFU) as the units of quantitative analysis for detection performance, and gradient dilution of SS1 suspension as the simulation sample, we measured the sensitivity of 4 Hp testing methods, including bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test, and quantitative fluorescent PCR. CFU values at different concentrations corresponding to the 4 commonly used Hp testing methods were documented and the correlations and differences were analyzed accordingly. Results: The sensitivity of Hp bacterial culture, rapid urease test, antigen test and quantitative fluorescent PCR was 2.0×10 CFU/mL, 2.0×10 Conclusion: The testing turnover time and sensitivity of different laboratory methods for Hp testing varied significantly. The quantitative fluorescent PCR and bacterial culture both showed relatively high sensitivity, but bacterial culture has complicated operation procedures and is too time-consuming. The rapid urease test and antigen test both were simple and quick to perform, but showed low sensitivity. For clinical and laboratory testing of Hp, appropriate testing method that can identify the corresponding changes of Hp should be selected according to the actual testing purpose.
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.