DNA was extracted from stool specimens using the Stool kit according to manufacturer's protocol.
Of those, 44.1% had used UBT, 34.5% had used BUT, 23.8 % had used ELISA and 9.8% had used the stool antigen test.
A limitation of our study is that we used the stool antigen test, which has not been validated for the Ugandan population, to detect H. pylori infection.
We used the stool antigen test to determine H. pylori infection and described the association of H. pylori infection with well-known risk factors including rural urban residence, sources of water for household use and educational attainment in pregnant women attending antenatal care at health facilities in various regions in Uganda.
We used the stool antigen testing method on a rectal swab to study the prevalence of H. pylori infection in ICU patients, and to analyze the possible relationship of H. pylori infection to the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
For those choosing the stool test, the primary reason related to having used a stool test in the past (Additional file 1: Table S9).
Stools were examined for Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and Yersinia species, and for parasites (using the triple feces test [ 21]).
The detection rates for serrated polyps and polyps with high-grade dysplasia using this multitarget stool test were 42.4% and 69.2% versus 5.1% and 46.2% using FIT, respectively.
In their model, cost per correct diagnosis using the antibody and stool tests ranged from $90 to $127.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) in 2005 recommended that to diagnose Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with dyspepsia, physicians should use either the stool antigen test or the urea breath test.[ 1, 2] Serologic tests were specifically not recommended due to inferior sensitivity and specificity.
