ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Clinical Utility and Diagnostic Yield of Duodenal Versus Jejunal Aspirates for Small Intestinal Bacterial or Fungal Overgrowth.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSmall intestinal bacterial (SIBO) or fungal overgrowth (SIFO) involves excessive microbial growth in the small intestine. While jejunal aspirate is the gold standard for diagnosis, duodenal aspiration is easier to perform. This study determined and compared the diagnostic yield of tandemly performed duodenal and jejunal aspirates and cultures.
methodsPatients with gas and bloating symptoms and suspected SIBO/SIFO underwent enteroscopy, during which duodenal and jejunal aspirates were sequentially collected using a 2 mm Liguory catheter under aseptic conditions. Cultures were performed for aerobic, anaerobic, and fungal organisms. The endoscopic time, diagnostic yield, and concordance rates were compared.
resultsOf 57 patients, 24 (42%) had positive cultures for SIBO and SIFO with diagnostic yield of 33% for both duodenal and jejunal aspirates. The overall concordance rate between duodenal and jejunal aspirates was 82% (47/57), with Cohen's kappa of 0.61. Among positive cases, the concordance was 58% (14/24). Using jejunal aspirates as the gold standard, duodenal aspirates had a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 87%, positive predictive value of 74%, and negative predictive value of 87%. Aerobes predominated (79%), with 15% anaerobes and 6% fungi. Common aerobes included Streptococcus, Haemophilus, Klebsiella, Rothia, and Neisseria, and anaerobes included Clostridium and Bacteroides, with similar prevalence at both sites. Jejunal aspiration took significantly longer to perform than duodenal (p < 0.001).
conclusionDuodenal and jejunal aspirates have comparable diagnostic yields for detecting SIBO/SIFO. With similar microbial profiles but shorter procedural time, duodenal aspirates offer a practical and efficient alternative for routine evaluation although may miss diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42471524What 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.