ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2024
Detection capacity of small intestine bacterial or methanogen overgrowth by lactose and fructose breath testing in the adult population.
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07652827 (Efficacy of a Probiotic Formulation), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Efficacy of a Probiotic Formulation (Lacticaseibacillus Rhamnosus - Limosilactobacillus Fermentum) on Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Adults With Lactose Intolerance and Methanogenic Intestinal Overgrowth
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: Exhaled breath tests (BTs) are the main diagnostic method for fructose and lactose malabsorption/intolerance (FI and LI, respectively) and for detecting small intestine bacterial or methanogen overgrowth (SIBO/IMO). Although FI/LI-BTs may provide evidence of the presence of SIBO/IMO, there is limited literature evaluating their reliability for this purpose. The objective of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of FI/LI-BTs in detecting SIBO and their concordance with SIBO-BTs in the identification of IMO. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, FI/LI-BTs and SIBO-BTs performed in the same patients within a period of 6 weeks were selected from 652 gas chromatography-based BTs. Results: A total of 146 BTs from 67 eligible adult patients were identified. LI-BTs had higher specificity than FI-BT in detecting SIBO (93.8 % vs. 72.7 %). In contrast, FI-BTs showed higher sensitivity (60.0 % vs. 28.6 %) as FI was more frequently established in SIBO-positive patients (70 % vs. 29 %). With regard to IMO, concordance with LI-BT was 100 %, with a 27 % of false negatives on FI-BTs. Conclusions: Findings suggestive of SIBO or IMO on LI-BTs were highly consistent with those of SIBO-BTs. In contrast, the rate of false positives for SIBO and the rate of false negative for IMO on FI-BTs was 27 % in both cases.
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.