Evaluation of three commercial serological tests with different methodologies to assess Helicobacter pylori infection.
The sera of 142 Helicobacter pylori-positive and 32 H. pylori-negative patients were assessed by a desktop test (QuickVue), an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (HM-CAP), and a solid-phase, two-step chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (Immulite). These tests yielded sensitivities of 97, 97, and 91% and specificities of 97, 94, and 100%, respectively. In conclusion, the desktop test and the ELISA are more sensitive than the chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (P < 0.05). The chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay has the advantage that it is fully automated.
van Der Ende
A
A
Department of Medical Microbiology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
van Der Hulst
R W
RW
Roorda
P
P
Tytgat
G N
GN
Dankert
J
J
D000328:Adult; D000907:Antibodies, Bacterial / Q000097:blood; D004724:Endoscopy; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005756:Gastritis / Q000382:microbiology; D016481:Helicobacter Infections / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000276:immunology / Q000382:microbiology; D016480:Helicobacter pylori / Q000276:immunology*; D006801:Humans; D007124:Immunoenzyme Techniques; D008163:Luminescent Measurements; D010437:Peptic Ulcer / Q000382:microbiology; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012698:Serologic Tests
D000907:Antibodies, Bacterial