These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparative study between rapid urease test, imprint and histopathological study for Helicobacter pylori diagnosis].
    Author: Aguilar-Soto O, Majalca-Martńez C, León-Espinosa F, Avila-Vargas G, Sánchez-Medina R, Figueroa SA, Padilla L, Di Silvio M.
    Journal: Rev Gastroenterol Mex; 2004; 69(3):136-42. PubMed ID: 15759784.
    Abstract:
    Helicobacter pylori infection is relevant, due to its role in different gastric pathologies; there are several diagnostic methods, which are divided into invasive and non-invasive. In the first category histology has been considered the gold standard, while other methods include imprint with Gram stain and rapid urease test, which can produce dependable results. The aim of this study is to compare several available techniques for H. pylori diagnosis to know their sensitivity and specificity. We studied 88 patients, 50 women and 38 men, with age range from 17 to 83 years (48.8+/-14.3) from the Endoscopy Department of the 20 de Noviembre Medical Center; in all five to eight biopsies were taken from gastric mucosa to perform rapid urease test, Gram-stained imprint and histology. Endoscopic findings included gastritis (87.50%), pangastritis (2.30%) and another diagnoses (10.22%). Rapid urease test was positive in 40 patients and negative in 48, while imprint was 34 and 54, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were as follows: rapid urease test, 84.8 and 78.5%, and imprint 75.8 and 83.6%, respectively. In conclusion, H. pylori diagnosis by rapid urease test is a dependable and quick method. On the other hand, imprint is useful but depends on the ability of the personnel who perform the test.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]