Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of two commercial enzyme immunoassays for the diagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infection

  • Notes
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sera from 65 patients with upper gastrointestinal tract symptoms and provenHelicobacter pylori infection, and from 42 negative controls were tested with two commercial EIAs (GAP test, Bio-Rad; and ECP test, Biometra) and two non-commercial EIAs, one performed with whole sonicated cells and the other with acid extract ofHelicobacter pylori as antigen. The GAP assay showed a sensitivity of 83.1 % and a specificity of 47.6 %. The ECP assay showed a sensitivity of 87.7 % and a specificity of 61.9 %. For both non-commercial EIAs these figures were 87.7 % and 88.1 %, respectively. Independent of the interpretive criteria established by the manufacturers, receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted for better evaluation of the four methods. Both commercial tests showed a lower probability of yielding a correct diagnosis than the non-commercial tests (p <0.05). Although commercial EIAs are convenient for the diagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infection, the accuracy of the two commercial tests evaluated in this study was lower compared to that of the two non-commercial EIAs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blaser MJ: Epidemiology and pathophysiology ofCampylobacter pylori infections. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1990, 12, Supplement 1: 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tytgat GNJ:Campylobacter pylori: epidemiological considerations. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1989, 24, Supplement 160: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wyatt JJ, Rathbone BJ: The role of serology in the diagnosis ofCampylobacter pylori infection. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1989, 24, Supplement 160: 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  4. van den Oever HLA, Loffeld RJLF, Stobberingh EE: Usefulness of a new serological test (Bio-Rad) to diagnoseHelicobacter pylori-associated gastritis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1991, 29: 283–286.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gray SF, Wyatt JI, Rathbone BJ: Simplified techniques for identifying gastricCampylobacter pylori on tissue sections. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1986, 39: 1279–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dent JC, McNulty CAM: Evaluation of a new selective medium forCampylobacter pylori. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 1988, 7: 555–558.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schaffner W, Weissmann C: A rapid, sensitive and specific method for the determination of protein in dilute solution. Analytical Biochemistry 1973, 56: 502–514.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blaser MJ, Duncan DJ: Human serum antibody response toCampylobacter jeuni infection as measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Infection and Immunity 1984, 44: 292–298.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crabtree JE, Shallcross TM, Heatley RV, Wyatt JI: Evaluation of a commercial EIA for serodiagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infection. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1991, 44: 326–328.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983, 148: 839–843.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barthel JS, Everett ED: Diagnosis ofCampylobacter pylori infections: the “gold standard” and the alternatives. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1990, 12, Supplement 1: 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Morris A, Ali MR, Brown P, Lane M, Patton K:Campylobacter pylori infection in biopsy specimens of gastric antrum: laboratory diagnosis and estimation of sampling error. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1989, 42: 727–732.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Megraud F, Brassens-Rabbe MP, Denis F, Belbouri A, Hoa DQ: Seroepidemiology ofCampylobacter pylori infection in various populations. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1989, 27: 1870–1873.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Drumm B:Helicobacter pylori. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1990, 55: 1278–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Robertson EA, Zweig MH, van Steirteghem AC: Evaluating the clinical efficacy of laboratory tests. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 1983, 19: 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Radiology 1982, 143: 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, “La Paz” Hospital, Madrid, Spain

    P. M. Aguirre

  2. Department of Allergy, “La Paz” Hospital, Madrid, Spain

    C. Y. Pascual

  3. Department of Microbiology, Insalud General Hospital, Paseo de Santa Bárbara s/n, 42002, Soria, Spain

    F. J. Merino

  4. Department of Microbiology, “Príncipe de Asturias” Hospital, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain

    A. C. Velasco

Authors
  1. P. M. Aguirre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Y. Pascual
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. J. Merino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. C. Velasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aguirre, P.M., Pascual, C.Y., Merino, F.J. et al. Evaluation of two commercial enzyme immunoassays for the diagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infection. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 11, 634–639 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01961674

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01961674

Keywords

Search

Navigation