Brief Reports
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2005.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2005; 11(37): 5878-5881
Published online Oct 7, 2005. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i37.5878
Table 1 UBT and Hp StAR results in study population. Biopsy-based tests were performed only in patients with discordant UBT and Hp StAR results
PtsDOB(POS>5)OD(POS>0.19)HistologyCultureRUTHp status
189 pts0.01–2.530.03–0.17npnpnpNEG
Pt1621.110.25NEGNEGNEGNEG
Pt1770.740.26NEGNEGNEGNEG
Pt970.280.3NEGNEGNEGNEG
Pt981.520.33NEGNEGNEGNEG
Pt960.730.34NEGNEGNEGNEG
Pt1790.110.29POSPOSNEGPOS
Pt2230.310.3POSNEGPOSPOS
Pt2011.070.34POSPOSNEGPOS
Pt723.560.61NEGPOSPOSPOS
Pt474.240.23POSNEGPOSPOS
51 pts6.81–86.150.23–2.93npnpnpPOS
Table 2 Diagnostic accuracy of UBT and Hp StAR
UBTHp StAR
Sensitivity91.8 (87.4–91.8)100 (95.2–100)
Sens=TP/(TP+FN)
Specificity100 (98.6–100)97.4 (96–97.4)
Spec=TN/(TN+FP)
Positive predictive value100 (95.2–100)91.8 (87.4–91.8)
+PV=TP/(TP+FP)
Negative predictive value97.4 (96–97.4)100 (98.6–100)
–PV=TN/(TN+FN)
Positive likelihood ratio¥ (60.9–¥)38.8 (23.2–38.8)
+LR=Sens/(100–Spec)
Negative likelihood ratio8.2 (8.2–12.8)0 (0–0.05)
–LR=(100–Sens)/Spec