Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 852

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hydrogen and Methane-Based Breath Testing in Gastrointestinal Disorders: The North American Consensus

Open access
Rezaie, Ali, Buresi, Michelle, Lembo, Anthony, Lin, Henry, McCallum, Richard, Rao, Satish, Schmulson, Max, Valdovinos, Miguel, Zakko, Salam, Pimentel, Mark·2017·American Journal of Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1038/ajg.2017.46
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Breath tests (BTs) are important for the diagnosis of carbohydrate maldigestion syndromes and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). However, standardization is lacking regarding indications for testing, test methodology and interpretation of results. A consensus meeting of experts was convened to develop guidelines for clinicians and research. METHODS: Pre-meeting survey questions encompassing five domains; indications, preparation, performance, interpretation of results, and knowledge gaps, were sent to 17 clinician-scientists, and 10 attended a live meeting. Using an evidence-based approach, 28 statements were finalized and voted on anonymously by a working group of specialists. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 26 statements encompassing all five domains. Consensus doses for lactulose, glucose, fructose and lactose BT were 10, 75, 25 and 25 g, respectively. Glucose and lactulose BTs remain the least invasive alternatives to diagnose SIBO. BT is useful in the diagnosis of carbohydrate maldigestion, methane-associated constipation, and evaluation of bloating/gas but not in the assessment of oro-cecal transit. A rise in hydrogen of ≥20 p.p.m. by 90 min during glucose or lactulose BT for SIBO was considered positive. Methane levels ≥10 p.p.m. was considered methane-positive. SIBO should be excluded prior to BT for carbohydrate malabsorption to avoid false positives. A rise in hydrogen of ≥20 p.p.m. from baseline during BT was considered positive for maldigestion. CONCLUSIONS: BT is a useful, inexpensive, simple and safe diagnostic test in the evaluation of common gastroenterology problems. These consensus statements should help to standardize the indications, preparation, performance and interpretation of BT in clinical practice and research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2017.46

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rezaie, A., Buresi, M., Lembo, A., Lin, H., McCallum, R., Rao, S., Schmulson, M., Valdovinos, M., Zakko, S., & Pimentel, M.
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2017-05
Volume
112
Issue
5
Pages
775-784
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/ajg.2017.46
OpenAlex
W2601950088
Cited by
852
References
8
FWCI
62.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.