NEAR PATIENT TESTING FOR HELICOBACTER-PYLORI - A DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE CORTECS-HELISAL RAPID BLOOD-TEST

Citation
Ma. Stone et al., NEAR PATIENT TESTING FOR HELICOBACTER-PYLORI - A DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE CORTECS-HELISAL RAPID BLOOD-TEST, European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 9(3), 1997, pp. 257-260
Citations number
15
Categorie Soggetti
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
ISSN journal
0954691X
Volume
9
Issue
3
Year of publication
1997
Pages
257 - 260
Database
ISI
SICI code
0954-691X(1997)9:3<257:NPTFH->2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the Cortecs Helisal Rapid Blood test for accura cy overall and in specific subgroups by age and ethnic origin. Additio nally, to assess readability of results, including inter-observer erro r, with consideration also given to usability and acceptability. Desig n: A prospective evaluation using four reference tests. Setting: A hos pital endoscopy unit. Methods: Two hundred patients attending for endo scopy were recruited for H. pylori testing with the Helisal test, plus antral biopsies for CLO test, culture and histology and serology usin g a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The Helisal test was carried out and results read strictly according to the manufa cturer's instructions. Two or more reference tests positive were taken as a gold standard positive; all results negative as negative and any remaining cases were regarded as equivocal. Performance figures were calculated twice, treating patients with equivocal status as either po sitive or negative. Results were in most cases double-read, blinded, b y two observers and readings subsequently compared. Results: The test was considered convenient, easy to use and acceptable to symptomatic p atients, but a notable proportion (10%) of results were very difficult to read. Sensitivity was acceptable (91-92% overall, 95% confidence i nterval (CI) 82-97%), but specificity was poor overall (56-62%, 95% CI 45-72%), and particularly in patients aged 45 years or over (44-51%) and those of South Asian origin (42-50%). Conclusion: The test could b e appropriate for testing younger symptomatic patients. Its usefulness was, however, found to be limited by poor readability of some results and poor specificity. Reading of some results as equivocal would be a ppropriate.