MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1968373296 · doi:10.1097/00004836-200211000-00001

A Semiquantitative Stool Antigen Test for Helicobacter pylori

2002· letter· en· W1968373296 sur OpenAlexaff
John K. Marshall, Deborah Yamamura

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2002
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineHelicobacter pyloriUrea breath testSerologyBreath testRapid urease testGastroenterologyInternal medicineImmunoassayAntigenBiopsyGastritisImmunologyHelicobacter pylori infectionAntibody

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The past 2 decades have witnessed a rapid evolution in our understanding the important role played by Helicobacter pylori in human gastrointestinal disease. Current guidelines recommend testing for H. pylori in the initial evaluation of young patients with dyspepsia without “red flag” symptoms. 1 The presence of H. pylori can be confirmed in gastric mucosal biopsy samples by culture, special histology, or rapid urease tests, but these approaches require the expense and inconvenience of endoscopy. As a result, accurate yet noninvasive alternatives have been sought. Helicobacter pylori serology is used widely in primary care, but it is unreliable in low- and high-prevalence populations and cannot be used to monitor eradication therapy. Accordingly and appropriately, its popularity appears to be waning. Until recently, the only available, nonendoscopic means of detecting active H. pylori infection was the urea breath test (UBT). 13C and 14C-urea breath tests are more accurate than is serology and, when available, have quickly become the tests of choice. Indeed, UBT has enjoyed a relative monopoly as a noninvasive test for active infection. However, this status ended recently, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a novel enzyme immunoassay for H. pylori antigen excreted in the stool. The principal limitation of fecal H. pylori assays is obvious and relates to patients' general reluctance to collect stool samples. Despite this, however, stool H. pylori antigen tests show great promise. Their accuracy for the initial diagnosis of H. pylori infection is high, similar to both UBT and endoscopic biopsy. A recent, comprehensive meta-analysis reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in excess of 90% for the detection of primary infection. 2 Importantly, stool antigen tests can be used to monitor eradication therapy, 3–5 although false-positive results may occur in the first 1 to 4 weeks with the shedding of dead organisms. Stool antigen assays also have several distinct and significant advantages over UBT, their principal competitor for noninvasive diagnosis: (1) they are simple to administer; (2) their costs in many jurisdictions are considerably lower 3,4,6; and (3) they require that laboratories acquire little in the way of new equipment. Importantly, stool specimens can be obtained with relative ease from patients who are unlikely to cooperate for endoscopy or breath tests. This feature makes stool H. pylori antigen assays particularly appealing for testing children, a subgroup in whom their diagnostic accuracy has been confirmed in several published series. 6–8 In this issue of the Journal, Ierardi et al. 9 from Italy explore another potential advantage of H. pylori stool antigen tests: their role as a semiquantitative measure of intragastric bacterial load. The authors used known titers of stool-mixed H. pylori to develop a saturation curve and convert stool H. pylori spectrophotometric absorbance in patient samples to estimates of bacterial load. Several conceptual issues arise immediately when considering this approach, including how the results would be affected by variation in stool weight and/or intestinal transit. However, the authors show favorable correlation between their semiquantitative stool assays and the UBT delta value, a marker generally considered to reflect intragastric bacterial load. Of note, these observations have been confirmed recently, with similar results reported by Chang et al. 10 Critics would argue that treatment decisions depend on the presence or absence of H. pylori, not its density. So why would clinicians seek to measure bacterial load? Increased bacterial load has been found to predict failure of eradication therapy and may offer a rationale for a more aggressive or prolonged antimicrobial regimen. 11–13 Higher densities of H. pylori have also been associated with more severe histologic gastritis by some investigators. 10 However, others have failed to confirm this relationship, 14 and it remains unclear whether knowledge of density should influence the clinical decision to treat. Increased H. pylori load has been suggested recently to predict the severity of dyspepsia, 15 but such a relationship would be only of academic interest if the infection were to be eradicated regardless. Other evidence of the importance of H. pylori density in the management of H. pylori-associated disease is surprisingly sparse. In summary, stool antigen tests for H. pylori have arrived on the scene and offer a simple, reliable, and valid alternative to UBT for the diagnosis of active H. pylori infection. These assays will undoubtedly become and remain a part of our diagnostic armamentarium. However, their prominence in primary care practice is limited by their relative acceptability to patients, particularly as point-of-care UBT becomes more widely available. The interpretation of stool antigen tests as semiquantitative measures of gastric H. pylori load offers an intriguing twist to this saga, but more reflection on the relevance of this insight to clinical care is needed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,086
Tête enseignante GPT0,377
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologyMême sujetHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studiesTravaux en français237 207