{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02734375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0046875, 'mean_word_length': 5.0424528301886795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Review article: the cost of diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection.

Non-invasive testing and treatment for Helicobacter pylori has been recommended for dyspeptic patients in primary care and a number of recent studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of this approach. As the prevalence of H. pylori infection declines, the positive and negative predictive values of individual tests will change. Cost-effectiveness is important in determining the appropriate test in individual populations. Recent studies have shown that the stool antigen test and the urea breath test have high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of H. pylori infection before and after therapy. Cost-effectiveness studies have shown that when the prevalence of H. pylori infection is low or intermediate, serological tests have relatively poor accuracy compared with the stool test or the urea breath test. In populations with low or intermediate prevalence (<60%) these tests should be preferred to ELISA serology or office-based whole-blood test or serology. This is particularly true when the prevalence of H. pylori infection is less than 30% as is seen in many developed countries. When the prevalence of H. pylori infection is high (>60%), low-cost antibody tests are cost-effective.