Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Comparison of immunohistochemical and modified Giemsa stains for demonstration of Helicobacter pylori infection in an African population
Abstract
BackgroundModified Giemsa staining has been favoured by many researchers because it is easy to perform but, like many other stains, demonstration of the bacteria depends on its morphology. It has been arged in some research circles that some of the organisms in the gastric mucosa may not be true H.pylori. Immunohistochemical techniques have been developed and make use of anti H.pylori antibody, which reacts, with somatic antigens of the whole bacteria and have been found to correlate well with the presence of the bacteria.
Objective : To ascertain the efficacy of modified Giemsa stain in an African setting where H.Pylori seems quite prevalent.
Study Design : A laboratory-based study of two diagnostic tests in which modified Giema stain was compared with immunohistochemistry.
Methods: A total of 48 consecutive autopsy cases with no upper gastro intestinal diseases had their gastric mucosa stained for demonstration of H.pylori using both modified Giemsa and immunohisto chemical staining techniques.
Results : Twenty-seven cases of H.pylori were demonstrated by both techniques and 14 cases were not identified by the two staining methods. In 2 cases immunostain could not demonstrate the bacteria but they were identified with modified Giemsa stain while in 5 cases the bacteria were identified by immunostain but not with modified Giemsa stain. The sensitivity of modified Giemsa stain was 85% (CI 66.5-98.8) while the specificity was 89% (CI 60.4 – 97.8). The positive predictive value of modified Giemsa stain was 93% CI 75 - 98.8%) while the negative predictive value was 74% (CI 48.6 - 89.9). The kappa statistic comparing the 2 stains was 0.69 (p value 0.00001) giving a good agreement between the two tests.
Conclusion : With the above results the modified Giemsa stain, which is readily available in most African laboratories, is recommenced for diagnosis of H.pylori, a prevalent infection in Africa.
Key words : H.pylori, modified Giemsa, immunohistochemical stains.
CI – Confidence Interval
African Health Sciences 2002;2(2):52-55
Objective : To ascertain the efficacy of modified Giemsa stain in an African setting where H.Pylori seems quite prevalent.
Study Design : A laboratory-based study of two diagnostic tests in which modified Giema stain was compared with immunohistochemistry.
Methods: A total of 48 consecutive autopsy cases with no upper gastro intestinal diseases had their gastric mucosa stained for demonstration of H.pylori using both modified Giemsa and immunohisto chemical staining techniques.
Results : Twenty-seven cases of H.pylori were demonstrated by both techniques and 14 cases were not identified by the two staining methods. In 2 cases immunostain could not demonstrate the bacteria but they were identified with modified Giemsa stain while in 5 cases the bacteria were identified by immunostain but not with modified Giemsa stain. The sensitivity of modified Giemsa stain was 85% (CI 66.5-98.8) while the specificity was 89% (CI 60.4 – 97.8). The positive predictive value of modified Giemsa stain was 93% CI 75 - 98.8%) while the negative predictive value was 74% (CI 48.6 - 89.9). The kappa statistic comparing the 2 stains was 0.69 (p value 0.00001) giving a good agreement between the two tests.
Conclusion : With the above results the modified Giemsa stain, which is readily available in most African laboratories, is recommenced for diagnosis of H.pylori, a prevalent infection in Africa.
Key words : H.pylori, modified Giemsa, immunohistochemical stains.
CI – Confidence Interval
African Health Sciences 2002;2(2):52-55
