ArticleMicrobiology insights2022
Diagnosis and Comparison of Three Invasive Detection Methods for Helicobacter pylori Infection.
Article in Microbiology insights, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Application value and performance of stool antigen detection in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with upper gastrointestinal disorders using different methods in Khuzestan, Southwest Iran.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of immunohistochemistry and rapid urease test in detecting Helicobacter pylori, emphasizing bacterial localization and mucosal changes: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
- A rapid and high-throughput multiplex genetic detection assay for detection, semi-quantification and virulence genotyping ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare different invasive methods for Methodology: Endoscopic gastroduodenal biopsy materials were collected from dyspeptic patients who underwent endoscopic examination upon fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Three to four samples were collected from each patient after taking informed consent and proper clinical history. A rapid urease test (RUT) was done on spot with in-house RUT media from 1 specimen. One to two specimens were preserved in 10% formaldehyde for histopathology and PCR for Results: Among 142 biopsy specimens, 34.5% were categorized as Conclusion: While histopathology could detect
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.