2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2017.07.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy of the Ultra-Rapid Urease Test for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
7
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown below, Vaira et al [25] did not find differences reading test results in 5 or in 60 minutes. McNichols et al [24] reported higher frequency of positive tests in a prospective series in cases read at 60 minutes regarding those read at 5 minutes (90% vs 78%), but these results came from different populations and settings, which do not allow their comparison. Along these lines we studied in our series the positive UFUT test read just before qPCR processing (between 24 hours to 2 weeks after biopsy), named as late UFUT (L-UFUT).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As shown below, Vaira et al [25] did not find differences reading test results in 5 or in 60 minutes. McNichols et al [24] reported higher frequency of positive tests in a prospective series in cases read at 60 minutes regarding those read at 5 minutes (90% vs 78%), but these results came from different populations and settings, which do not allow their comparison. Along these lines we studied in our series the positive UFUT test read just before qPCR processing (between 24 hours to 2 weeks after biopsy), named as late UFUT (L-UFUT).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The RUT chosen in our study was the UFUT, sampling antrum and incisura angularis, and with reading after 5 minutes, following the manufacturer's instructions. In patients not selected by PPI consumption, the UFUT with reading at 30 and 60 minutes have demonstrated to be at least as accurate as conventional RUT with reading up to 24 hours [24]. Previously, Vaira et al [25] did not find differences between UFUT with reading at 60 and 5 minutes in specificity (100% in both) and sensitivity [96.2 (95%CI: 94.5-98) vs. 94.5 (95%CI: 92.4-96.6)], in this case for patients without prior PPI.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to these results, other authors reported higher percentages. MCNICHOLL et al (2017) (MCINTOSH et al, 2010). This difference in results showed a limitation of the technique.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The method shows up to 82% of sensitivity and 90% of specificity. The main disadvantage is that RUT seems to decrease its relibility in case of proton pomps inhibitors use (Adu-Aryee et al, 2016;McNicholl et al, 2017;Dahlén et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%