Helicobacter · 2018
A systematic review and meta-analysis of genotypic methods for detecting antibiotic resistance in Helicobacter pylori.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang You-Hua, Li Zhen, Wang Le, Zhu-Ge Li-Ya, Zhao Ru-Lin, Wu Shuang, Wang Ya, An Ying, Xie Yong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic susceptibility testing is essential for tailored treatments to cure Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. However, phenotypic methods have some limitations.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of genotypic detection methods compared with phenotypic detection methods using samples taken from H. pylori-infected patients.
METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in the following databases (from January 2000 to November 2016): PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed for studies that compared genotypic methods with phenotypic methods for the detection of H. pylori antibiotic susceptibility.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for the A2142G/C and/or A2143G combination for the detection of clarithromycin resistance in the strain samples were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), and 13 742 (95% CI: 1708-110 554), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR for the A2142G/C and/or A2143G combination for the detection of clarithromycin resistance in biopsy samples were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99), and 722 (95% CI: 117-4443), respectively. The summarized sensitivity, specificity, and DOR value for the ability of the genotypic methods to detect quinolone resistance in biopsy specimens were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.92-1.00), and 6042 (95% CI: 486-75 143), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The genotypic detection methods were reliable for the diagnosis of clarithromycin and quinolone resistance in the strain and biopsy specimens. The A2142G/C and/or A2143G combination had the best sensitivity and specificity for the detection of clarithromycin resistance.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of genotypic detection methods compared with phenotypic detection methods using samples taken from H. pylori-infected patients.
METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in the following databases (from January 2000 to November 2016): PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed for studies that compared genotypic methods with phenotypic methods for the detection of H. pylori antibiotic susceptibility.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for the A2142G/C and/or A2143G combination for the detection of clarithromycin resistance in the strain samples were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), and 13 742 (95% CI: 1708-110 554), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR for the A2142G/C and/or A2143G combination for the detection of clarithromycin resistance in biopsy samples were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99), and 722 (95% CI: 117-4443), respectively. The summarized sensitivity, specificity, and DOR value for the ability of the genotypic methods to detect quinolone resistance in biopsy specimens were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.92-1.00), and 6042 (95% CI: 486-75 143), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The genotypic detection methods were reliable for the diagnosis of clarithromycin and quinolone resistance in the strain and biopsy specimens. The A2142G/C and/or A2143G combination had the best sensitivity and specificity for the detection of clarithromycin resistance.