Urea breath test for infection in adult dyspeptic patients: A meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Background: () infection has been well-established as a significant risk factor for several gastrointestinal disorders. The urea breath test (UBT) has emerged as a leading non-invasive method for detecting . Despite numerous studies confirming its substantial accuracy, the reliability of UBT results is often compromised by inherent limitations. These findings underscore the need for a rigorous statistical synthesis to clarify and reconcile the diagnostic accuracy of the UBT for the diagnosis of infection.

Aim: To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of C-UBT and C-UBT for infection in adult patients with dyspepsia.

Methods: We conducted an independent search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases until April 2022. Our search included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (C-UBT or C-UBT) against a reference standard. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We utilized the bivariate random-effects model to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative test likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), as well as the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and their 95% confidence intervals. We conducted subgroup analyses based on urea dosing, time after urea administration, and assessment technique. To investigate a possible threshold effect, we conducted Spearman correlation analysis, and we generated summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves to assess heterogeneity. Finally, we visually inspected a funnel plot and used Egger's test to evaluate publication bias.

Results: The titles and abstracts of 4621 studies were screened; 79 articles were retrieved and selected for full-text reading. Finally, 60 studies were included in the diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. Our analysis demonstrates superior diagnostic accuracy of C-UBT over C-UBT, indicated by higher sensitivity (96.60% 96.15%), specificity (96.93% 89.84%), likelihood ratios (LR+ 22.00 10.10; LR- 0.05 0.06), and area under the curve (AUC; 0.979 0.968). Notably, C-UBT's DOR (586.47) significantly outperforms C-UBT (DOR 226.50), making it the preferred diagnostic tool for dyspeptic individuals with infection. Correlation analysis revealed no threshold effect (C-UBT: = 0.48; C-UBT: = -0.01), and SROC curves showed consistent accuracy. Both C-UBT and C-UBT showed high AUC values (C-UBT 0.979; C-UBT 0.968) near 1.00, reinforcing their excellent accuracy and endorsing both as reliable diagnostic tools in clinical practice.

Conclusion: In summary, our study has demonstrated that C-UBT has been found to outperform the C-UBT, making it the preferred diagnostic approach. Additionally, our results emphasize the significance of carefully considering urea dosage, assessment timing, and measurement techniques for both tests to enhance diagnostic precision. Nevertheless, it is crucial for researchers and clinicians to evaluate the strengths and limitations of our findings before implementing them in practice.