ArticleHelicobacter
Diagnostic Value of the Pylori DuoTect Test for Helicobacter pylori Detection in the Vietnamese Population.
Article in Helicobacter. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy in Helicobacter pylori detection using blood test with FliD and CagA antibodies (Pylori DuoTect), comparing with rapid urease test (RUT) and urease breath test (UBT) in Vietnamese patients with upper GI symptoms.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Hanoi, Vietnam on adults with upper GI symptoms, no prior treatment of peptic ulcers, and no history of H. pylori infection. Participants underwent upper GI endoscopy and three H. pylori tests, including rapid urease test (RUT), urea breath test (UBT), and Pylori DuoTect. Pylori DuoTect was considered positive if either FliD or CagA antibodies were detected. The H. pylori infection was defined as both RUT and UBT positive. Endoscopic findings were classified using the Kyoto classification score for gastritis. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsFrom December 1, 2023, to August 9, 2024, 333 patients were recruited (mean age 45.9 years, 39.9% male). The most common symptom was epigastric pain (49.5%). The prevalences of gastritis, gastric ulcers, and duodenal ulcers were 92.7%, 12.1%, and 8.1%, respectively. Pylori DuoTect was positive in 51.9% of patients (FliD: 34.8% and CagA: 66.6%). Using the gold standard, 33.6% were diagnosed with H. pylori infection. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of Pylori DuoTect were 83.0%, 64.0%, 54.0%, and 88.0%, respectively. Combining Pylori DuoTect and endoscopy findings (peptic ulcer or Kyoto score ≥ 2) improved the sensitivity from 0.83 to 0.88 and increased NPV.
conclusionPylori DuoTect had moderate sensitivity and low specificity in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection in Vietnamese adult patients.
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.