Assesses diagnostic efficacy of combined tests for Helicobacter pylori in chronic gastritis, indicating improved detection methods.
This study aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of Helicobacter pylori antibody serotyping, current infection marker (CIM) testing, and urea breath test (UBT), both individually and in combination, for detecting H pylori infection in patients with type B chronic gastritis. A total of 159 subjects were enrolled for detecting the levels of H pylori antibody serotyping using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, anti-CIM immunonglobulin G antibody via immunochromatographic assay, and 13 C-UBT using an infrared spectrometer. The results revealed that levels of H pylori serotyping antibodies and 13 C-UBT were significantly elevated in patients with chronic non-atrophic gastritis and chronic atrophic gastritis compared to those in healthy controls, with a strong positive correlation between these markers ( P < .05). Positive rates for CIM and type I H pylori serotyping were significantly higher in the type B chronic gastritis group than in healthy individuals ( P < .05). A high positive coincidence rate was exhibited among the 3 tests. Notably, the simultaneous positivity or negativity of all 3 tests was highly consistent with the gastroscopic diagnosis of chronic gastritis or a healthy status, respectively, and this strong concordance highlighted the diagnostic value of the combined test results. In addition, the 3-test combination provided superior diagnostic value in sensitivity and accuracy than any single test or 2-test combination, achieving the highest area under the curve of 0.952. These findings suggest that the combined application of the 3 tests can serve as a noninvasive early screening diagnostic indicator for chronic non-atrophic gastritis and chronic atrophic gastritis, which may contribute to improving early clinical prevention and treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: