Abstract :
Background: There were two commercial rapid urease tests available in Thailand, CLOtest and Pronto Dry . The comparison between both tests has not been studied widely not only in Thailand but also in all other countries.
Objective: To compare the accuracy of both tests in detecting Helicobacter pylori infections.
Patients and Methods: Antral biopsy specimens were done from 200 patients who underwent endoscopic evaluation for dyspeptic symptoms at the Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital. Six specimens were taken, one for CLOtest , one for Pronto Dry , two for culture and two for histological study. The results of both rapid urease tests were determined at 15, 30, 45, 60, 120 minutes and 24 hours intervals. Helicobacterpylori infection was defined as 1) positive culture or 2) positive both histology and CLOtest
Results: The sensitivity of CLOtest vs. Pronto Dry at different intervals were 0.02 vs. 0.35 at 15
minutes; 0.11 vs. 0.47 at 30 minutes; 0.14 vs. 0.55 at 45 minutes; 0.26 vs. 0.65 at 60 minutes; 0.38 vs. 0.71 at 120 minutes and 0.73 vs. 0.87 at 24 hours. The specificity of all tests were 1.0 except for 3 false positive cases in Pronto Dry group and 1 case in CLO test groups at 24 hours resulting in the specificity of 0.97 and 0.99, respectively. The accuracy of CLOtest vs. Pronto Dry were 0.52 vs. 0.68 at 15 minutes; 0.56 vs. 0.74 at 30 minutes; 0.58 vs. 0.78 at 45 minutes; 0.64 vs. 0.83 at 60 minutes; 0.70 vs. 0.86 at 120 minutes and 0.86 vs. 0.92 at 24 hours. The differences between both methods were statistically significant (p <.001).
Conclusion: Pronto Dry is significantly more accurate than CLOtest in detecting Helicobacter py-
lori infection at any interval from 15 minutes to 24 hours.
[Thai J Gastroenterol 2005; 6(2): 55-60] |
file/Thai-Journal-of-gastroenterology-vol-6-no-2-1659285.pdf