JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
Current Helicobacter pylori Diagnostics: Established Methods, Resistance Testing, and Emerging Approaches.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Tang Tianhua, Paz Erwin A, Yu Kan, Lee Khui Hung, Tay Chin Yen, Wang Jingjing, Marshall Barry James, Hu Linli, Fu Wanting, Yang Ziyao
Аннотация
AIMS: Accurate diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection is required to detect active infection, confirm eradication, assess gastric pathology when indicated, and obtain antimicrobial resistance information that may guide treatment. This review evaluates the clinical roles, limitations, and implementation maturity of established, molecular, and emerging diagnostic approaches.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, prioritizing clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, diagnostic accuracy studies, multicenter validation studies, and directly relevant method-development research. Histology, rapid urease testing, and culture remain established biopsy-based methods, whereas urea breath testing and validated monoclonal stool antigen testing are the leading non-invasive options for detecting active infection and confirming eradication. Serology is useful only in selected settings because it cannot reliably distinguish current from previous infection. Culture provides phenotypic susceptibility results but is technically demanding. qPCR and targeted PCR provide faster, target-specific genotypic information, while next-generation sequencing may broaden resistance-variant detection in specialist or surveillance settings. Genotypic findings require antibiotic-specific interpretation because genotype-phenotype concordance varies. AI-assisted endoscopic interpretation, biosensors, LAMP, CRISPR-based assays, and string test-based sampling may address specific workflow gaps, but most remain adjunctive, selectively implemented, early translational, or investigational.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic selection should begin with the clinical question and integrate patient risk, treatment history, medication exposure, local resistance patterns, specimen access, laboratory capacity, turnaround time, and available resources. Wider adoption of newer technologies requires external validation, standardization, quality assurance, regulatory readiness, economic assessment, and evidence that results improve clinical management.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, prioritizing clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, diagnostic accuracy studies, multicenter validation studies, and directly relevant method-development research. Histology, rapid urease testing, and culture remain established biopsy-based methods, whereas urea breath testing and validated monoclonal stool antigen testing are the leading non-invasive options for detecting active infection and confirming eradication. Serology is useful only in selected settings because it cannot reliably distinguish current from previous infection. Culture provides phenotypic susceptibility results but is technically demanding. qPCR and targeted PCR provide faster, target-specific genotypic information, while next-generation sequencing may broaden resistance-variant detection in specialist or surveillance settings. Genotypic findings require antibiotic-specific interpretation because genotype-phenotype concordance varies. AI-assisted endoscopic interpretation, biosensors, LAMP, CRISPR-based assays, and string test-based sampling may address specific workflow gaps, but most remain adjunctive, selectively implemented, early translational, or investigational.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic selection should begin with the clinical question and integrate patient risk, treatment history, medication exposure, local resistance patterns, specimen access, laboratory capacity, turnaround time, and available resources. Wider adoption of newer technologies requires external validation, standardization, quality assurance, regulatory readiness, economic assessment, and evidence that results improve clinical management.