SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- VTH BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON HELICOBACTER PYLORI INFECTION.Arquivos de gastroenterologia · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Rapid Urease Test (RUT) Device for Rapid Diagnosis ofMicroorganisms · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science, up to July 2023. Data were pooled and analyzed using random-effects models. Sensitivity, specificity, and Diagnostic Odds Ratios (DOR) were computed for the tests. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed. Results: Eight studies involving diverse geographic locations and totaling between 46 and 1,441 participants per study were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for HpSA were 72.5 and 94.7%, for Serology 83.7 and 73.3%, and for UBT 96.4 and 88.3%, respectively. DOR for UBT, HpSA, and Serology were 94.5, 47.9, and 14.2, respectively. High levels of heterogeneity were observed across the studies. Conclusion: UBT and HpSA proved effective for diagnosing
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.