ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Methodological evaluation of
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tailored screening and eradication ofFrontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical feasibility of using PCR testing based on gastric juice samples as an alternative to gastric mucosa samples for determining Methods: A total of 470 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and a rapid urease test (RUT) at our hospital between January 2025 and April 2025 were selected. Both gastric juice and gastric mucosa samples were collected from each patient. Fluorescent PCR melting curve analysis was used to detect Results: Compared to RUT, PCR testing of gastric juice samples for determining H. pylori infection showed a sensitivity of 92.86% (95% CI: 89.6-95.3), specificity of 95.0% (95% CI: 89.5-97.9), positive predictive value (PPV) of 98.19% (95% CI: 96.1-99.3), negative predictive value (NPV) of 82.01% (95% CI: 74.6-87.8), and good agreement (Kappa = 0.835, P < 0.001). Using gastric mucosa PCR as the "gold standard," PCR testing of gastric juice samples for H. pylori infection demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.90% (95% CI: 90.8-96.1), specificity of 93.65% (95% CI:87.9-97.0), PPV of 97.58% (95% CI: 95.2-98.9), NPV of 84.89% (95% CI: 77.7-90.3), and good agreement (Kappa = 0.848, P < 0.001). Using culture-based drug susceptibility testing as the "gold standard," the resistance detection rate of gastric juice PCR was 86.42% (70/81), with moderate agreement (Kappa = 0.684, P < 0.001). The resistance detection rate of gastric mucosa PCR was 88.89% (72/81), with good agreement (Kappa = 0.788, P < 0.001). Using first-generation sequencing gene detection as the "gold standard," the resistance detection rate of gastric juice PCR was 84.27% (75/89), with moderate agreement (Kappa = 0.694, P < 0.001). The resistance detection rate of gastric mucosa PCR was 87.64% (78/89), with good agreement (Kappa = 0.805, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Compared to gastric mucosa samples, PCR testing using gastric juice samples enables relatively non-invasive, rapid, efficient, and reliable diagnosis of
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.