ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Sensitivity and Specificity of
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study of Esomeprazole Comparing a Dual Delayed-Release Formulation (YYD601) to a Conventional Formulation Following Multiple Administrations in Healthy Adult Subjects.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Accuracy and Agreement of a 45 mg Versus a 75 mgDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Fecal miR-146a as a Non-Invasive Biomarker forLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Detecting Bacteria in Their Mammalian Hosts Using Metabolism-Targeted [ACS central science · 2026Article
- Confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication using ¹³C urea breath test: addressing the regional post-treatment outcomes.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and treatment ofFuture microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in the general population in Wuzhou, China: a cross-sectional study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- Association betweenFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Epidemiology, pathogenicity, risk factors, and management ofBiomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Review
- Feasibility Study to Byproduce Medical Radioisotopes in a Fusion Reactor.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) continues to be a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. A PRISMA systematic search appraisal and meta-analysis were conducted. A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted up to August 2022. Generic, methodological and statistical data were extracted from the eligible studies, which reported the sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on crude sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath test rates. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q and I2 tests. The literature search yielded a total of 5267 studies. Of them, 41 articles were included in the final analysis, with a sample size ranging from 50 to 21857. The sensitivity and specificity of 13C/14C-urea breath tests in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection ranged between 64−100% and 60.5−100%, respectively. The current meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity points of estimate were 92.5% and 87.6%, according to the fixed and random models, respectively. In addition, the specificity points of estimate were 89.9% and 84.8%, according to the fixed and random models, respectively. There was high heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 98.128 and 98.516 for the sensitivity and specificity, respectively, p-value < 0.001). The 13C/14C-urea breath tests are highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection.
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.