Skip to main content
Log in

Receiver Operator Characteristic Analysis of Endoscopy as a Test for Gastritis

  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Endoscopic evaluation of the presence or absenceof gastritis is often performed in lieu of biopsy andhistologic diagnosis. The purpose of our study was toassess the value of endoscopic examination as a diagnostic test for gastritis. Twoendoscopists prospectively assessed the antrum of 73patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy andgraded, on a scale of 0-4 (0 = completely absent, 4 = definitely present), the likelihood ofgastritis. The following features were also assessed atthe time of endoscopy: erythema, nodularity, erosion,edema, and friability. Two concomitant antral biopsies (3 cm from the pylorus on the greater curvatureof the stomach) were performed regardless of theendoscopic impression. The histologic findings weregraded independently on a scale of 0-3 by twopathologists who were not aware of the endoscopic findings.The following histologic features were graded: acuteinflammation, chronic inflammation, lymphoid aggregates,intestinal metaplasia, and quantity of Helicobacter pylori organisms. Receiver operatorcharacteristic analysis, a method derived from signaldetection theory, assesses the trade-off of sensitivityand specificity over all cutoff points of a test and is considered the best method by which to comparetests and determine the diagnostic utility of a giventest. Receiver operator characteristic analysis gave anarea of 0.65 ± 0.01 SE for endoscopy as a test for gastritis (0.5 = chance, 1 = perfect) asdefined by the histologic presence of inflammation.Additionally, endoscopy as a test for the presence ofhistologically proven Helicobacter pylori gave an area of 0.55 ± 0.01 SE. All endoscopicallygraded features treated as separate tests for gastritisand/or H. pylori gave areas of approximately 0.44-0.61,indicative of a poor test. While H. pylori was always associated with at least some degree ofinflammation, linear regression analysis revealed nocorrelation among any of the histologic features or ofany histologic feature with any endoscopic feature. We conclude that a tissue diagnosis is essentialfor the proper diagnosis of gastritis.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Sauerbruch T, Schreiber MA, Schüssler P, Permanetter W: Endoscopy in the diagnosis of gastritis. Diagnostic value of endoscopic criteria in relation to histological diagnosis. Endoscopy 16:101–104, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atkins L, Benedict EB: Correlation of gross gastroscopic findings with gastroscopic biopsy in gastritis. N Engl J Med 254(14):641–645, 1956

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cronstedt JL, Simson IW: Correlation between gastroscopic and direct vision biopsy findings. Gastrointest Endosc 19(4):174–175, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  4. Elta GH, Appelman HD, et al: A study of the correlation between endoscopic and histological diagnoses in gastroduodenitis. Am J Gastroenterol 82(8):749–753, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fung WP, Padadimitriou JM, Matz LR: Endoscopic, histological and ultrastructural correlations in chronic gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol 71(3):269–279, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  6. Greenlaw R, Sheahan DG, et al: Gastroduodentis. A broader concept of peptic ulcer disease. Dig Dis Sci 25(9):660–671, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kang JY, LaBrooy SJ, Wee A: Gastritis and duodenitis-A clinical, endoscopic and histological study and review of the literature. Ann Acad Med 12(4):539–544, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  8. Myren J, Serck-Hanssen A: The gastroscopic diagnosis of gastritis with particular reference to mucosal reddening and mucous covering. Scand J Gastroenterol (9):457–462, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  9. Misiewicz JJ: The Sydney system: Histologic division. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 65(3):209–222, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  10. Appelman HD: Gastritis: Terminology, etiology, and clinicopathologic correlations: Another biased view. Hum Pathol 25:1006–1019, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  11. Furth EE, Rubesin SE, Levine MS: Pathologic primer on gastritis: an illustrated sum and substance. Radiology 197:693–698, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  12. Metz CE: Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  13. Metz CE: ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 21:720, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bamber D: The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating graph. J Math Psychol 12:387, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beck JR, Schultz EK: The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 110:13, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Diagn Radiol 143:29, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hanley JA: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: The state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 29:307, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  18. Begg CB, McNeil BJ: Assessment of radiologic tests: Control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology 167:565–569, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR: Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 288:926–930, 1978

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belair, P.A., Metz, D.C., Faigel, D.O. et al. Receiver Operator Characteristic Analysis of Endoscopy as a Test for Gastritis. Dig Dis Sci 42, 2227–2233 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018854315027

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018854315027

Navigation