PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S J Mahoney

Publications and source records attributed to S J Mahoney.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

Evaluation of a new urease reagent strip for detection of Helicobacter pylori in gastric biopsy specimens.

OBJECTIVES: Determine sensitivity and specificity of a new urease reagent strip (URS) test for detection of Helicobacter pylori in gastric biopsy specimens. METHODS: Six paired biopsy specimens were obtained from the greater curvature of the distal antrum, the lesser curvature near the incisura, and the corpus along the greater curvature during 66 procedures on 59 patients with endoscopic findings of gastric antral mucosal erythema or erosions, or gastric or duodenal ulcers. One biopsy from each site was tested with the URS. The second was evaluated with histology. A final antral biopsy was evaluated with a urea/gel test. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of the 66 cases were histologically positive, with H. pylori observed in at least one of the three biopsy sites. The URS test correctly identified all 28. Of 193 individual biopsy specimens, 78 were positive for H. pylori. The URS correctly identified 77. Sensitivity was 0.99, specificity 0.95, positive predictive value 0.93, negative predictive value 0.99, and kappa 0.92. Average time to positive was 20 min. Twenty-seven antral biopsies were histologically positive for H. pylori. The URS test correctly identified all 27, whereas the urea/gel test correctly identified 21. For antral sites, URS sensitivity was 1.00 and specificity 0.95 versus urea/gel test sensitivity of 0.75 and specificity of 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the URS test is as accurate as histology in diagnosing H. pylori infections, and it provides results in less time and at a lower cost than histology.

Bacteriological Techniques↗
PubMed1994

Low-cost, office-based, screening colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Performing full colonoscopy at regular intervals and removing lesions at an early stage might significantly lower the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Such a program must be inexpensive, safe, and time-efficient. METHODS: Screening colonoscopy was performed on 639 patients. For a normal examination, the physician's time is limited to giving the medication for conscious sedation, performing the colonoscopy, and completing a written report form. The total charge for a normal screening colonoscopy is $150. RESULTS: Adenomatous and/or hyperplastic polyps were detected in 218 patients (34.1%). One hundred sixty adenomatous and 134 hyperplastic polyps were removed. Forty-eight percent (48.1%) of the adenomatous and 21.6% of the hyperplastic polyps were above the sigmoid colon. Six adenocarcinomas were detected in five patients. One patient had a delayed bleeding episode requiring no transfusion or therapeutic intervention, and one patient had a "post-polypectomy syndrome" requiring no therapeutic intervention. The average physician time in the endoscopy room for normal examinations was 18 min. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy can be safely performed in an office facility. Physician time with the patient should be limited to allow a low cost that compares favorably with screening costs for other malignancies. Long-term studies to assess the capability of screening colonoscopy to lower mortality from colorectal cancer should continue.

Adenocarcinoma↗