Article Type: Original Article
Abstract: Introduction: The diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection has been made through invasive and non-invasive methods. The present study was carried out to evaluate and compare the accuracy of three non-invasive and one invasive methods of H.pylori infection diagnosis. Method:A total of 108 dyspeptic patients older than 12 years old who were not previously treated for H.pylori infection, were selected to undergo upper GI- endoscopy. Histology was considered as a gold standard diagnostic test. Urea breath test and Biopsy-based tests included histologic examination and rapid urease test were done in endoscopic unit. Serology and stool antigen detection test were done elsewhere using ELISA method. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value were calculated. The tests' results were assessed by McNemar test. Results:According to histologic method 56 patients had H.pylori infection. Sensitivitiy and specificity was 89% and 71% for the rapid urease test, 94% and 52% for serology, 90% and 82% for the urea breath test, and 46% and 80%, respectively, for the stool antigen test. Rapid urease test and urea breath test, if done in combination together had the most diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion:Rapid urease test and urea breath test in combination together showed acceptable diagnostic reliability.