1995Ewha Medical JournalOpen access

The Clinical Value of Rapid Urease Test(CLO Test) for the Detection ofHelicobacter Pyloriin Gastric Biopsy Specimens of Duodenal Ulcer Patients

Doe Young Kim, Sung Sook Kim

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Objectives This study was aimed to assess the value of rapid urease test (CLO test) for thedetection of Helicobacter (H.) pylori in patiens with duodenal ulcer and compare its resultwith histological technique using H & E stain. Methods The CLO test and histological study were done using three pieces of antral biopsyspecimens in 46 patients with duodenal ulcer. The clinical histories such as smoking, bloodtype or the previous use of NSAIDs were obtained from the patients. Results 1) The CLO test was positive in 35 (76.1%) among 46 patients with duodenal ulcer, while H & E stain was positive in 91.3%. 2) When H & E stain positive case was diagnosed as H. pylori infection, the sensitivity of CLO test was 81.0%, the specificitry 75.0% and the predictability was 97.1%. 3) The grading of gastric inflammation showed that the higher the histologogical grade, the more likely CLO test would be positive. 4) There were no differences of recurring history of duodenal ulcer, smoking rate, NSAIDs history and blood type between 34 cases of both CLO and H & E positive cases and 3 cases ofboth negative cases except a mild increasing tendency of age, male predominance and scarringstage of duodenal ulcer in both negative cases. Conclusion The CLO test is a rapid and simple test, but it should require other complementary diagnostic tests to increase the sensitivity and specificity.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objectives This study was aimed to assess the value of rapid urease test (CLO test) for thedetection of Helicobacter (H.) pylori in patiens with duodenal ulcer and compare its resultwith histological technique using H & E stain. Methods The CLO test and histological study were done using three pieces of antral biopsyspecimens in 46 patients with duodenal ulcer. The clinical histories such as smoking, bloodtype or the previous use of NSAIDs were obtained from the patients. Results 1) The CLO test was positive in 35 (76.1%) among 46 patients with duodenal ulcer, while H & E stain was positive in 91.3%. 2) When H & E stain positive case was diagnosed as H. pylori infection, the sensitivity of CLO test was 81.0%, the specificitry 75.0% and the predictability was 97.1%. 3) The grading of gastric inflammation showed that the higher the histologogical grade, the more likely CLO test would be positive. 4) There were no differences of recurring history of duodenal ulcer, smoking rate, NSAIDs history and blood type between 34 cases of both CLO and H & E positive cases and 3 cases ofboth negative cases except a mild increasing tendency of age, male predominance and scarringstage of duodenal ulcer in both negative cases. Conclusion The CLO test is a rapid and simple test, but it should require other complementary diagnostic tests to increase the sensitivity and specificity.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objectives This study was aimed to assess the value of rapid urease test (CLO test) for thedetection of Helicobacter (H.) pylori in patiens with duodenal ulcer and compare its resultwith histological technique using H & E stain. Methods The CLO test and histological study were done using three pieces of antral biopsyspecimens in 46 patients with duodenal ulcer. The clinical histories such as smoking, bloodtype or the previous use of NSAIDs were obtained from the patients. Results 1) The CLO test was positive in 35 (76.1%) among 46 patients with duodenal ulcer, while H & E stain was positive in 91.3%. 2) When H & E stain positive case was diagnosed as H. pylori infection, the sensitivity of CLO test was 81.0%, the specificitry 75.0% and the predictability was 97.1%. 3) The grading of gastric inflammation showed that the higher the histologogical grade, the more likely CLO test would be positive. 4) There were no differences of recurring history of duodenal ulcer, smoking rate, NSAIDs history and blood type between 34 cases of both CLO and H & E positive cases and 3 cases ofboth negative cases except a mild increasing tendency of age, male predominance and scarringstage of duodenal ulcer in both negative cases. Conclusion The CLO test is a rapid and simple test, but it should require other complementary diagnostic tests to increase the sensitivity and specificity.

Key concepts: Rapid urease test, Gastroenterology, Internal medicine, Medicine, Helicobacter pylori, Duodenal ulcer, Gram staining, Stain

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Clinical Value of Rapid Urease Test(CLO Test) for the Detection ofHelicobacter Pyloriin Gastric Biopsy Specimens of Duodenal Ulcer Patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens