Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Theoretically, a rapid urease test (RUT) using a swab of the gastric wall (Swab-RUT) for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is safe. However, the validity and utility of Swab-RUT remain unclear. Therefore, we assessed the validity and utility of Swab-RUT compared to RUT using mucosal forceps of the gastric wall (Forceps-RUT) and 13C-urea breath test (UBT).Methods
This study was a multicenter prospective observational study. When the examinees were suspected of H. pylori infection during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, we performed Swab-RUT and Forceps-RUT continuously. When the examinees were not suspected of H. pylori infection, we performed Swab-RUT alone. We validated the status of H. pylori infection using UBT.Results
Ninety-four examinees were enrolled from four institutions between May 2016 and December 2020 (median age [range], 56.5 [26-88] years). In this study, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Swab-RUT to UBT were 0.933 (95% confidence interval: 0.779-0.992), 0.922 (0.827-0.974), and 0.926 (0.853-0.970), respectively. The Kappa coefficient of Swab-RUT to UBT was 0.833, and that of Swab-RUT to forceps-RUT was 0.936. No complications were observed in this study.Conclusions
Swab-RUT is a valid examination for the status of H. pylori infection compared to the conventional Forceps-RUT.
SUBMITTER: Yoshikawa T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11316279 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Yoshikawa Takaaki T Yamauchi Atsushi A Kou Tadayuki T Murao Takahisa T Kamada Tomoari T Suehiro Mitsuhiko M Kawano Koichiro K Haruma Ken K Yazumi Shujiro S
BMC gastroenterology 20240809 1
<h4>Background</h4>Theoretically, a rapid urease test (RUT) using a swab of the gastric wall (Swab-RUT) for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is safe. However, the validity and utility of Swab-RUT remain unclear. Therefore, we assessed the validity and utility of Swab-RUT compared to RUT using mucosal forceps of the gastric wall (Forceps-RUT) and <sup>13</sup>C-urea breath test (UBT).<h4>Methods</h4>This study was a multicenter prospective observational study. When the examinees were suspected of ...[more]