Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2020; 26(1): 16-28  https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm19113
Breath Tests for the Non-invasive Diagnosis of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
Giuseppe Losurdo,1 Gioacchino Leandro,2 Enzo Ierardi,1 Francesco Perri,3 Michele Barone,1 Mariabeatrice Principi,1 and Alfredo Di Leo1*
1 Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University “Aldo Moro”, Piazza Giulio Cesare, B ari, Italy; 2 Gastroenterology Unit, National Institute of Research for Gastroenterology “Saverio De Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Bari, Italy; and 3 Digestive Endoscopy Unit, National Institute of Research “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza”, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy
Correspondence to: Alfredo Di Leo, MD, PhD
Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University “Aldo Moro”, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy
Tel: +39-080-559-3452, Fax: +39-080-559-3088, E-mail: alfredo.dileo@uniba.it
Received: May 22, 2019; Revised: August 29, 2019; Accepted: September 20, 2019; Published online: January 30, 2020.
© The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. All rights reserved.

cc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

Background/Aims

Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) diagnosis is usually based on non-invasive breath tests (BTs), namely lactulose BT (LBT) and glucose BT (GBT). However, divergent opinions and problems of parameter standardization are still controversial aspects. We aim to perform a meta-analysis to analyze diagnostic performance of LBT/GBT for SIBO diagnosis.

Methods

We searched in main literature databases articles in which SIBO diagnosis was achieved by LBT/GBT in comparison to jejunal aspirate culture (reference gold standard). We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratios. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn and pooled areas under the curve were calculated.

Results

We selected 14 studies. Pooled sensitivity of LBT and GBT was 42.0% and 54.5%, respectively. Pooled specificity of LBT and GBT was 70.6% and 83.2%, respectively. When delta over baseline cut-off > 20 H2 parts per million (ppm) was used, GBT sensitivity and specificity were 47.3% and 80.9%; when the cutoff was other than and lower than > 20 ppm, sensitivity and specificity were 61.7% and 86.0%. In patients with abdominal surgery history, pooled GBT sensitivity and specificity gave the impression of having a better performance (81.7% and 78.8%) compared to subjects without any SIBO predisposing condition (sensitivity = 40.6% and specificity = 84.0%).

Conclusions

GBT seems to work better than LBT. A cut-off of delta H2 expired other than and lower than > 20 ppm shows a slightly better result than > 20 ppm. BTs demonstrate the best effectiveness in patients with surgical reconstructions of gastrointestinal tract.

Keywords: Breath tests; Glucose; Hydrogen; Lactulose; SIBO
Introduction

Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is a disease characterized by an increased concentration of bacteria in the small bowel.1 In healthy subjects, less than 103 organisms/mL are found in the upper small intestine, and the majority of these are Gram-positive organisms. In addition to the absolute number of organisms, the type of microbial flora seems to play an important role in the appearance of signs and symptoms.2 Gram-negative bacteria may produce toxins that damage the intestinal mucosa, inhibiting the absorptive function.3

SIBO develops when the normal mechanisms that control the growth of enteric bacteria are compromised. Several processes predispose to bacterial overgrowth such as anatomical/structural changes of the small intestine (previous gastrointestinal surgery), motility disorders (such as gastroparesis), metabolic disorders (gastric hypochlorhydria and diabetes), organ system dysfunctions (cirrhosis, renal failure, chronic pancreatitis, Crohn’s disease, and celiac disease), medications (prolonged use of proton pump inhibitors and antibiotics), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).410 The most common symptoms are diarrhea, abdominal pain and bloating, but weight loss, malnutrition, and deficiency of vitamins (B12, D, A, and E) and minerals (iron and calcium) are possible.1

The flora of SIBO patients is mainly characterized by the prevalence of coliform bacteria and anaerobes, which cause fermentation of carbohydrates, compete with vitamin and micronutrient absorption and engender microscopic mucosal inflammation, thus leading to the above described symptoms.1,11,12 Most experts suggest that jejunal aspirate culture (with a bacterial colony count ≥ 105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of SIBO.1,13 However, culture has several drawbacks, the most important one being the invasiveness of the procedure. Consequently, other non-invasive tests have been advocated for the diagnosis of SIBO. Hydrogen breath tests (H2BT) have gained growing consensus for this purpose, and the most commonly employed in clinical practice, as well as in the literature, are the lactulose breath test (LBT) and the glucose breath test (GBT).1,13

Nevertheless, divergent opinions and problems of parameter standardization still represent controversial aspects. Although the Rome Consensus Conference on Hydrogen Breath Tests endorsed the use of GBT over LBT for SIBO diagnosis,14 LBT is still used in clinical practice. The main reason for prefer LBT to GBT is based on the presumption that GBT is unable to detect the microbiota in the distal SIBO since glucose is rapidly absorbed in the proximal small bowel.15 Conversely, lactulose is a non-absorbable sugar, which passes through the entire small bowel, and could be more appropriate for the distal SIBO diagnosis. However, LBT results are often affected by gut motility, especially in patients with diarrhea, thus hampering its widespread use.16

On these bases, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic yield (sensitivity and specificity) of LBT and GBT in comparison to the recognized gold standard, ie, jejunal culture. This was the first meta-analysis on the topic, to the best of our knowledge.

Materials and Methods

Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

Methods of analysis and inclusion criteria were based on “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)” recommendations,17 and its extension for diagnostic test accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) was taken into account.18 A PRISMA-DTA checklist is provided in the Supplementary Table 1. We excluded review articles, experimental in vitro studies and single case reports. In cases of studies analyzing overlapping periods from the same registry/database, we considered only the studies that examined the longest period and the largest number of patients.

Data Collection Process

A literature search was performed and updated in January 31st 2019. Relevant publications were identified by a research in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Only in extenso papers were selected, therefore abstracts or conference proceedings were excluded. The search terms were small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, SIBO, breath test, lactulose, and glucose. We used the following string, using Boolean operators AND/OR: (Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth OR SIBO) AND (culture OR breath test OR lactulose OR glucose). We selected only studies in which a breath test (glucose or lactulose) was compared to jejunal aspirate culture in the same group of patients. Titles and abstracts of papers were screened by 2 reviewers (G.L. and E.I.). Successively, data were extracted from the relevant studies by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, and thus inserted into dedicated tables. A third reviewer (F.P.) came to a decision on any disagreements.

Reviewers independently extracted from each paper the following data: (1) publication year; (2) country; (3) single- or multi-center study; (4) study design; (5) number of patients included; (6) patients’ age, sex, and main characteristics/symptoms; (7) cutoffs and protocols used for culture and BT; and (8) number of true positive/negative and false positive/negative results. If the study did not provide sufficient data to extract true positive/negative and false positive/negative outcomes, it was excluded from the final analysis.

Summary Measures and Planned Methods of Analysis

The end-point was to estimate the pooled weighted sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio for positive and negative tests (PLR and NLR, respectively), and diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) of GBT and LBT in comparison to culture. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were drawn and pooled areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. A random effect model was followed in all analyses. Indeed, according to the Cochrane handbook Chapter 9.5.4, the choice between a fixed-effect and a random-effects meta-analysis should never be made on the basis of a statistical test for heterogeneity and one model (most often, the random-effects model) should be chosen a priori for all analyses.33 We assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test and, if statistically significant, the I2 statistic was computed. If necessary, a subgroup analysis was performed. The data were expressed as proportions/percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed according to the general principles of meta-analysis.34 The Meta-Disc software version 1.4 (University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain) was used.35

Two reviewers (G.L. and G.Le.) independently assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2) instrument.36 This tool is designed to assess the quality of primary diagnostic accuracy studies for inclusion in the systematic review. Publication bias was conducted by the Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test, with P-value < 0.05 for the slope coefficient indicating significant asymmetry.37

Results

Study Selection and Main Features

Fourteen studies, listed in Table 11932 were selected out of 2123 articles found after the literature search. Further details about the process of article selection are reported in the PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1. The PRISMA-DTA checklist is provided as Supplementary Table 1. In all studies, GBT was used and, in 4 of them, both LBT and GBT were considered.20,23,24,27 In all studies but one29 an adult population was recruited. A total of 757 subjects were selected across all studies.

The quality of studies is reported in Supplementary Table 2. All studies achieved a good score, except for the “reference standard” regarding its applicability concern domain. Indeed, it could be expected that a routine jejunal culture cannot be always applied, being an invasive test, even for ethical reasons.

Performance of Glucose Breath Test and Lactulose Breath Test

In all the 14 studies,1932 GBT was used in comparison to jejunal culture. In total, 668 patients were considered. The pooled sensitivity was 54.5% (95% CI, 48.20–60.70), and heterogeneity was present (χ2 = 61.52, P < 0.001, I2 = 78.9%). Pooled specificity was 83.2% (95% CI, 79.10–86.90) and heterogeneity was detected (χ2 = 54.76, P < 0.001, I2 = 76.3%), as shown in Figure 2A and 2B. In Figure 2C–E pooled PLR, NLR, and DOR are reported. PLR was 2.45 (95% CI, 1.51–3.97), with high heterogeneity (χ2 = 38.6, P < 0.001, I2 = 66.3%). NLR was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45–0.80) and heterogeneity was found (χ2 = 44.58, P < 0.001, I2 = 70.8%). Finally, DOR was 5.17 (95% CI, 2.42–11.05) and heterogeneity was present (χ2 = 35.06, P = 0.001, I2 = 62.9%). The SROC curve (Fig. 2F) had a pooled AUC = 0.74 ± 0.07.

The Deeks’ funnel plot for this analysis, reported in Supplementary Figure 1, showed a symmetrical distribution of studies, confirmed by a corresponding test for the slope, with P = 0.813. Therefore, no publication bias was detected.

A comparison between LBT and jejunal culture was possible only in 4 studies,20,23,24,27 enrolling 214 patients overall. The pooled sensitivity was 42.0% (95% CI, 31.6–53.0), with presence of heterogeneity (χ2 = 12.34, P = 0.006, I2 = 75.7%). Pooled specificity was 70.6% (95% CI, 61.9–78.4) and heterogeneity was detected (χ2 = 17.46, P = 0.001, I2 = 82.8%), as reported in Figure 3A and 3B. In Figure 3C–E, pooled PLR, NLR, and DOR are shown. PLR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.77–2.22), and in this case no heterogeneity was found (χ2 = 4.22, P = 0.24, I2 = 28.9%). NLR was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.57–1.08) and heterogeneity was absent (χ2 = 6.772, P = 0.08, I2 = 55.4). Finally, DOR was 1.77 (95% CI, 0.72–4.37), and we did not find heterogeneity (χ2 = 4.48, P = 0.21, I2 = 33%). The SROC curve (Fig. 3F) had a pooled AUC = 0.56 ± 0.09.

We did not detect publication bias for this analysis, since the test for funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. 2) provided a P-value of 0.250.

Sub-analysis According to Population Sub-categories

A sample size sufficient to perform sub-analysis was possible only for GBT. Indeed, only 4 studies were focused on LBT, so this sub-analysis would have low statistical power with such a small number of articles.

The sub-category of patients who had undergone previous gastrointestinal surgery was considered in 6 studies.20,26,28,30,31 The most common surgical procedures were partial gastrectomy and colectomy. We were able to extract sufficient data for sub-group meta-analysis from only 3 studies (93 subjects in total). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81.7% and 78.8%, respectively. PLR was 3.23 and NLR was 0.20; overall DOR was 18.58. Finally, AUC was 0.86 ± 0.09. Further details of this sub-analysis are reported in Table 2.

In the group of patients without any predisposing conditions, we included subjects in which factors predisposing to SIBO such as abdominal surgery, celiac disease, connective tissue disorders, and others as listed in.410 In 6 studies the sub-category of patients without any predisposing conditions was considered.21,22,24,28,30,32 Three hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this subgroup, which was constituted mainly by healthy controls, elderly patients with diarrhea, and IBS patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR were 40.6%, 84.0%, 1.64, and 0.84, respectively. Pooled DOR was 2.32 and AUC was 0.59 ± 0.14. If we selected only asymptomatic healthy controls, only 30 subject could be recruited, providing a pooled sensitivity of 9.1%, a specificity of 66.9%, PLR = 0.86, NLR = 1.02, and DOR= 0.01. Further details of these sub-analyses are reported in Table 2.

We did not find publication bias in any of the sub-analyses, since the test for Deeks’ funnel plot was not statistically significant, as reported in Table 2.

Sub-analysis According to Diagnostic Cut-off Values

Culture

Only in 2 studies a value of > 103 CFU/mL was chosen.22,30 The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 40.7% and 84.0% respectively. Additionally we found PLR = 2.54, NLR = 0.71, and DOR = 3.59. It was not possible to draw a SROC only for 2 studies.

A cut off > 105 CFU/mL was reported in most of the studies and provided an overall sensitivity of 55.3% and a specificity of 83.9%. PLR, NLR, and DOR were respectively 2.61, 0.59, and 5.88. AUC was 0.77 ± 0.08 (Table 2).

Three studies used a value > 106 CFU/mL.19,20,27 In this case we found a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 62.5% and 77.4%, respectively. PLR was 2.74, NLR was 0.54, and DOR was 5.35. AUC was 0.37 ± 0.14.

Glucose breath test

A delta value > 20 ppm was used in 7 studies, with 333 patients,19,21,22,25,27,30,32 while a value other than and lower than > 20 ppm (> 10, > 12, or > 15) was used in 7 papers (306 patients).20,23,24,26,28,29,31

A cut off > 20 ppm provided a pooled sensitivity of 47.3% and specificity of 80.9%. Overall PLR, NLR, and DOR were 1.95, 0.66, and 3.35, respectively. AUC of SROC was 0.70 ± 0.23.

On the other hand, a cut off other than and lower than > 20 ppm showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 61.7% and 86.0%, respectively. Pooled PLR was 3.2, NLR was 0.54, and DOR was 8.11. SROC curve analysis demonstrated an AUC = 0.79 ± 0.07.

Only one study considered the “double peak” as a diagnostic criterion, therefore a sub-analysis was not possible.27 No study considered high basal hydrogen levels as a SIBO diagnostic criterion.

We did not find publication bias in any sub-analysis, since the test for Deeks’ funnel plot was not statistically significant.

Further details about all above mentioned sub-analyses are shown in Table 2.

Discussion

SIBO is a condition characterized by an abnormal colonization of the small bowel by colonic bacteria. The most commonly used diagnostic tools in clinical practice are H2BTs, however their validation, in comparison to jejunal aspirate culture has shown several pitfalls. Only one systematic review investigated this topic, showing that LBT exhibited a sensitivity ranging from 31% to 68% and a specificity of 44–100%, while GBT showed a range of sensitivity of 20–93% and a specificity of 30–86% across cited studies.38 However, a quantitative examination with a pooled analysis of such data was lacking until now. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first meta-analysis regarding the performance of H2BT for SIBO diagnosis.

Our first aim is to ascertain whether GBT and LBT could give similar results in diagnostic accuracy. Indeed, despite the Rome consensus that discouraged the use of LBT,14 some opinions disagree because LBT could be more effective than GBT in the case of “distal SIBO.” Overall, our results clearly showed that GBT had higher sensitivity and specificity than LBT, and even a better AUC (0.74 versus 0.56). Therefore, our results seem to confirm the statement of the Rome consensus. The poorer performance of LBT may have different explanations. First, the results of LBT are highly influenced by the bowel transit time.39 Therefore, since lactulose is not absorbed in the small bowel, it might rapidly pass into the colon where it could be degraded by colonic bacteria with rapid hydrogen production,40 thus leading to false positivity. Additionally, patients with fast transit will display an early peak that may be misinterpreted as SIBO. It is possible that these factors could have affected our finding of low LBT specificity (70.6%) when compared to that of GBT (83.2%). False negative H2BT results may even be found in non-hydrogen producers: in this case, additional measurement of methane in the breath may improve the diagnosis.41 However, despite 3 among 14 that estimated methane,22,30,32 only one study expressed results in a way satisfactory to extract data, therefore a meta-analysis was not possible. We believe that this is a relevant limitation of our analysis, since we were not able to assess the impact of methane detection on BT performance.

Recently, the North American consensus on BT established that a rise of > 20 ppm from baseline should be the optimal cut off for GBT.42 In our analysis, 7 studies used this cutoff, providing an overall sensitivity of 47.3% and a specificity of 80.9%, with AUC = 0.70. However, we demonstrated that the performance of GBT was slightly superior, with a sensitivity and specificity of 61.7% and 86.0%, respectively, and AUC = 0.79, when a lower cut off (delta other than and lower than > 20 ppm) was established. Even the DOR was much higher (8.11 versus 3.35) in this case. Therefore, our results suggest that a cut off value other than and lower than > 20 ppm as suggested by the Rome consensus may provide better sensitivity and specificity than the cut off value of > 20 ppm proposed by North American Consensus.

Another strongly debated point is linked to the culture of jejunal aspirate. So far, the gold standard test for SIBO diagnosis has been the culture of jejunal aspirate. It is obtained by means of patient intubation and aspiration at multiple intestinal sites, more rarely during enteroscopy. The amount of liquid, the site of collection (traditionally beyond the ligament of Treitz) and the technical details of the microbiological tests (for both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria), as well as the cut-off value for definition of SIBO are not yet standardized, although many studies use a value of > 105 CFU/mL. Indeed, even if it has been considered so far as the gold standard for SIBO diagnosis, recent evidence and opinions have questioned this statement. First, the cut off value of > 105 CFU/ mL, which was the most widespread in literature, is no longer considered reliable, and the North American consensus has proposed a level of > 103 CFU/mL. In our systematic review, only 2 studies employed this cut off; as the specificity (84.0%) was high and comparable to other cut-offs, the sensitivity was very low (40.7%), but the scanty number of patients enrolled in this sub-analysis (only 197) is a limit for the discussion of this result. Most of studies used a value of 105 CFU/mL and 3 reports used a value of 106 CFU/ mL. As reported in more detail in Table 2, a value of 105 CFU/ mL provided a slightly higher sensitivity, but lower specificity, while the DOR, PLR, and NLR were comparable. Therefore, it seems that these 2 cut off values could be interchangeable but further studies using the 103 CFU/mL value are necessary to ascertain the suitability of the North American consensus recommendation. On the other hand, the clinical practice of jejunal culture has several drawbacks. First, it is an invasive procedure that requires a catheter to be placed by endoscopic or fluoroscopic guide. Therefore, patient compliance for this cumbersome procedure aimed to diagnose a hypothetical benign disease is presumably very low. Moreover, it is necessary to use a sterilized catheter and to avoid contact with the oral mucosa, which could cause contamination by oral flora. The limitation of culture for SIBO has been highlighted by Sundin et al,32 who showed that cultures may frequently underestimate the real bacterial load and that the correlation between microbiological results and BT results is weak. Moreover, metagenomic studies have shown that jejunal culture could not detect up to 80.0% of bacterial species, since there are some strains that are not culturable.43

Another interesting finding of our work was that, in patients with surgical reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, sensitivity was higher (81.7% versus 40.6%) than in subjects without a predisposing condition. Even the AUC was much better (0.86 versus 0.59), meaning an overall better performance of GBT in this group of patients. A possible explanation is that the prevalence of SIBO may reach the 61.6% in operated patients who are likely to suffer from leakage of anatomical or chemical mechanisms hampering the overgrowth of bacteria in the small bowel.44,45 For instance, in gastrectomy patients, reduction of acid secretion is a predisposing factor. Additionally, the lack of a “gastric brake” may lead to early stomach emptying, which is the basis of the dumping syndrome as well. Therefore, if the small bowel is rapidly filled up by a hyperosmotic fluid, the excessive sugar content will be degraded by bowel flora, thus leading to bacterial overgrowth. In this perspective, it has been observed that SIBO might be one of the most important causes of post-gastrectomy syndrome associated with intestinal symptoms and late hypoglycemia, and that gas-related symptoms (bloating and abdominal fullness) occur simultaneously with GBT hydrogen peak, suggesting that they could originate from small intestinal bacteria.46 Similarly, patients with multiple ileal resections or ileo-cecal valve resection have an increased SIBO risk because of the absence of the ileo-cecal valve, which is a mechanical structure hindering the reflux of colonic bacteria into the small bowel.47 Furthermore, we found a quite low BT performance in patients without predisposing conditions. In all the studies we selected, this group of patients was mainly represented by IBS patients. In this regard, despite various meta-analyses showing an increased risk of SIBO in IBS,7 recent evidence has shown that BTs have low sensitivity and specificity (around 60.0%) to diagnose SIBO in IBS patients, which is in agreement with our results.48,49

Some limitations of our study need to be mentioned. For example, the difference in protocols and glucose dose may be an important source of heterogeneity among studies that could not be solved by sub-analysis grouping. Furthermore, sub-analysis often led to grouping of a small number of studies, for instance the analysis of patients with surgical interventions enclosed only 3 studies. Additionally, a head-to-head comparison of GBT and LBT is lacking, and this may be an obstacle to conclude whether GBT is really superior to LBT, despite the results of our analysis. Finally, it is important to be aware that when the number of studies is low, the power of the test for publication bias is low, an event that took place in several subgroup analyses: this underlines the need for additional studies to solve this drawback.

In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that GBT has high values of diagnostic yield, more than LBT and, therefore, it should be preferred as suggested by guidelines.14,42 However, few studies have proposed a head-to-head comparison of these 2 tests,20,23,24 therefore this direct comparison calls for further investigations and this represents an additional limitation. Additionally, a GBT cut off value with a delta other than > 20 ppm seems to work better, in contrast to that proposed by the North American consensus, and this will be relevant food for thought in future investigations. Finally, the microbiological diagnosis of SIBO is still an unanswered question: a quantitative cut-off is not sufficient, while a qualitative analysis of the microbiota would be preferable, because SIBO is a dynamic syndrome with many differences due to several distinct triggering pathological conditions.50,51 For such reasons, BT52 remain the mainstay for the non-invasive diagnosis of SIBO even if some limitations should be taken into account. Noteworthy, the performance of BT is optimal only when performed in selected populations by using the best available protocol.53,54

Supplementary Information
Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Maria Benedetta Lorusso for linguistic revision and Vito Bellomo for graphical help.

Figures
Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram reporting the process of study selection. BT, breath test.

Fig. 2. Forest plot of pooled sensitivity (A), specificity (B), pooled positive (C) and negative (D) likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odd ratio (E), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (F) of glucose breath test for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth diagnosis. AUC, area under the curve.

Fig. 3. Forest plot of pooled sensitivity (A), specificity (B), pooled positive (C) and negative (D) likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odd ratio (E), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (F) of lactulose breath test for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth diagnosis. AUC, area under the curve.

Tables

Main Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis

Study Nation Cut off for culture Cut off for BT BT protocol Characteristics of enrolled patients
Berthold et al,19 2009 Germany > 106 CFU/mL GBT: -maximal excretion 20 ppm during 2 hr
-Δ > 20 ppm
-sustained increase from baseline > 12 ppm
50 g of glucose in
300 mL of water
21 patients, 8 F/13 M
Age mean 50, range 18–73
-8 cirrhosis
-6 diabetes
-3 IBD
-3 chronic gastritis
-3 chronic pancreatitis
Corazza et al,20 1990 Italy > 106 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 10 ppm
LBT: Δ > 20 ppm or 2 peaks > 10 ppm
GBT: 75 g of glucose in 375 mL water
LBT: 12 g of lactulose in 24 mL water
Collection every 10 min for 3 hr
77 consecutive patients
-21 gastrointestinal resection
-7 PPI or anti-H2
-5 atrophic gastritis
-4 Crohn’s disease
-3 diabetic neuropathy
Donald et al,21 1992 England > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 20 ppm 50 mg of glucose; collection every 15 min for 2 hr 47 elderly patients with signs suggestive of malnutrition
Age median 80, range 70–92
Erdogan et al,22 2015 USA > 103 CFU/mL GBT: ΔH2 > 20 ppm or ΔCH4 > 15 ppm 75g of glucose in 250 mL water; collection every 15 min for 2 hr 139 subjects with clinical suspicion of SIBO
33 M/106 F, mean age 47
Ghoshal et al,23 2006 India > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 12 ppm
LBT: Δ > 20 ppm
Not described 83 patients with malabsorption; 50 M/33 F, mean age 35 range 14–70
-38 tropical sprue
-7 celiac disease
-7 immunoglobulin deficiency
-1 Crohn’s disease
-8 intestinal parasites (Giardia, Strongyloides…)
Ghoshal et al,24 2014 India > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 12 ppm
LBT: Δ > 20 ppm or double peak
GBT: 100 g of glucose in 200 mL water; collection every 15 min for 3 hr
LBT: 10 g of lactulose in 15 mL water; collection every 15 min for 4 hr
80 patients with irritable bowel syndrome; 65 M/15 F; mean age 34 range 17–67
Kaye et al,25 1995 England > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 20 ppm 50 g of glucose in 200 mL water; collection every 15 min for 2 hr 24 scleroderma patients with malabsorption, but only 20 undergo BT
8 M/16 F; mean age 42.5 range 22–63
Kerlin and Wong,26 1988 Australia > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 12 ppm 50 g of glucose in 250 mL water; collection every 30 min for 4 hr 45 patients with diarrhea, steatorrhea; 17 of them with gastrointestinal resections
King and Toskes,27 1986 USA > 106 CFU/mL GBT and LBT; double peak with Δ > 10 ppm or any peak with Δ > 20 ppm GBT: 80 g of glucose in 300 mL water
LBT: 10 g of lactulose in 300 mL water; collection every 5 min in the first 40 min, then every 10–15 min for 3 hr
30 patients with diarrhea, 20 of them with gastrointestinal resections
Mac Mahon et al,28 1996 Ireland > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 10 ppm 50 g of glucose in 250 mL water; collection every 20 min for 2 hr 30 elderly patients, 9 of them with Billroth II resection
19 F/11 M; mean age 79 range 69–90
Pignata et al,29 1990 Italy > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 10 ppm Water solution of glucose 10% concentration; 2g/Kg 17 children (age range 2–17) with primary immunoglobulin deficiency; only 12 of them undergone culture
Rao et al,30 2018 Germany > 103 CFU/mL GBT: ΔH2 > 20 ppm or ΔCH4> 15 ppm or combined Δ> 15 ppm 75 g of glucose in 250 mL water; collection every 15 min for 2 hr 50 colectomy patients (56% partial, 22% subtotal, 22% total); 50 healthy controls
41 F/9 M; mean age 52.3 range 20–85
Stotzer and Kilander,31 2000 Sweden > 105 CFU/mL GBT: Δ > 15 ppm 50 g of glucose in 250 mL water; collection every 15 min for 2 hr 46 patients with diarrhea, 16 of them with predisposing conditions
-5 partial gastric resection
-3 atrophic gastritis
-2 small bowel diverticula
Mean age 57 range 27–87
Sundin et al,32 2018 USA > 105 CFU/mL GBT: ΔH2 > 20 ppm
ΔCH4 > 10 ppm
90 g of glucose in 100 mL water; collection every 20 min for 3 hr 18 patients with clinical suspicion of SIBO; 4 M/14 F, age range 26–79

BT, breath test; CFU, colony-forming units; GBT, glucose breath test; LBT, lactulose breath test; F, female; M, male; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; SIBO, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.


Performance of Glucose Breath Test According to Some Discriminating Factors

Subgroups Value (95% CI) Heterogeneity Publication bias


χ2 P-value I2 (%) P for funnel plot
Patients undergone gastrointestinal surgery 0.781
 Sensitivity 81.7% (69.6–90.5) 10.83 0.004 81.6
 Specificity 78.8% (61.1–91.0) 2.82 0.242 29.1
 PLR 3.23 (1.52–6.89) 2.45 0.291 18.5
 NLR 0.20 (0.04–1.00) 11.39 0.003 82.4
 DOR 18.58 (2.04–169) 6.41 0.040 68.8
 AUC-SROC 0.86 ± 0.09
Patients without predisposing conditions 0.192
 Sensitivity 40.6% (31.1–50.5) 28.86 < 0.001 82.7
 Specificity 84.0% (78.7–88.4) 39.60 < 0.001 87.4
 PLR 1.64 (0.75–3.62) 18.31 0.001 72.7
 NLR 0.84 (0.63–1.13) 15.94 0.007 68.6
 DOR 2.32 (0.71–7.58) 13.58 0.020 63.2
 AUC-SROC 0.59 ± 0.14
Diagnostic cut off for culture > 103 CFU/mL NE
 Sensitivity 40.7% (30.5–51.5) 0.13 0.711 0.0
 Specificity 84.0% (75.6–90.4) 0.04 0.843 0.0
 PLR 2.54 (1.54–4.19) 0.13 0.720 0.0
 NLR 0.71 (0.58–0.86) 0.18 0.670 0.0
 DOR 3.59 (1.84–6.99) 0.15 0.700 0.0
 AUC-SROC NE
Diagnostic cut off for culture > 105 CFU/mL 0.722
 Sensitivity 55.3% (47.9–62.6) 53.67 < 0.001 83.2
 Specificity 83.9% (79.4–87.7) 44.04 < 0.001 79.6
 PLR 2.61 (1.47–4.62) 25.23 0.001 69.2
 NLR 0.59 (0.42–0.85) 36.00 < 0.001 75.0
 DOR 5.88 (2.35–14.91) 25.86 0.002 65.2
 AUC-SROC 0.77 ± 0.08
Diagnostic cut off for culture > 106 CFU/mL 0.513
Sensitivity 62.5% (45.8–77.3) 3.55 0.174 43.6
Specificity 77.4% (58.9–90.4) 9.94 0.007 79.9
PLR 2.74 (0.41–18.27) 9.63 0.008 79.2
NLR 0.54 (0.21–1.36) 7.34 0.020 72.8
DOR 5.35 (0.38–74.3) 8.41 0.011 76.2
AUC-SROC 0.37 ± 0.14
Diagnostic cut off for GBT delta > 20 ppm 0.871
 Sensitivity 47.3% (38.4–56.3) 27.43 < 0.001 78.1
 Specificity 80.9% (74.8–86.0) 15.63 0.020 61.6
 PLR 1.95 (0.92–4.11) 17.76 0.007 66.2
 NLR 0.66 (0.43–1.02) 27.81 < 0.001 78.4
 DOR 3.35 (1.03–10.89) 20.38 0.002 70.6
 AUC-SROC 0.70 ± 0.23
Diagnostic cut off for GBT delta > 12 ppm (or other lower than 20) 0.884
 Sensitivity 61.7% (52.7–70.2) 28.67 < 0.001 79.1
 Specificity 86.0% (80.0–90.7) 37.37 < 0.001 83.9
 PLR 3.20 (1.51–6.75) 21.71 0.001 72.4
 NLR 0.54 (0.37–0.78) 14.15 0.030 57.6
 DOR 8.11 (3.01–21.82) 12.29 0.061 51.2
 AUC-SROC 0.79 ± 0.07

PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; DOR, diagnostic odd ratio; AUC-SROC, area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic; CFU, colony-forming units; NE, not estimable for only 2 studies; GBT, glucose breath test.

AUC-SROC data are presented as mean ± SD.


Footnotes

Supplementary Materials

Note: To access the supplementary tables and figures mentioned in this article, visit the online version of Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility at http://www.jnmjournal.org/, and at https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm19113.

Financial support: None.

Conflicts of interest: None.

Author contributions: Giuseppe Losurdo, Gioacchino Leandro, and Alfredo Di Leo planned the study; Giuseppe Losurdo, Mariabeatrice Principi, Michele Barone, and Enzo Ierardi collected the data; Giuseppe Losurdo, Enzo Ierardi, and Francesco Perri wrote the paper; and Giuseppe Losurdo and Gioacchino Leandro performed statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final version of the paper.

References
  1. Ponziani FR, Gerardi V, Gasbarrini A. Diagnosis and treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;10:215-227.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Husebye E. The pathogenesis of gastrointestinal bacterial overgrowth. Chemotherapy 2005;51(suppl 1):1-22.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Schlegel L, Coudray-Lucas C, Barbut F, et al. Bacterial dissemination and metabolic changes in rats induced by endotoxemia following intestinal E. coli overgrowth are reduced by ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate administration. J Nutr 2000;130:2897-2902.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Heneghan HM, Zaborowski A, Fanning M, et al. Prospective study of malabsorption and malnutrition after esophageal and gastric cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2015;262:803-807 discussion 807–808..
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Jacobs C, CossAdame E, Attaluri A, Valestin J, Rao SS. Dysmotility and proton pump inhibitor use are independent risk factors for small intestinal bacterial and/or fungal overgrowth. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;37:1103-1111.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Rana SV, Malik A, Bhadada SK, Sachdeva N, Morya RK, Sharma G. Malabsorption, orocecal transit time and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in type 2 diabetic patients: a connection. Indian J Clin Biochem 2017;32:84-89.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Ierardi E, Losurdo G, Sorrentino C, et al. Macronutrient intakes in obese subjects with or without small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: an alimentary survey. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016;51:277-280.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Losurdo G, Marra A, Shahini E, et al. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and celiac disease: a systematic review with pooled-data analysis. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017;29:e13028.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Chen B, Kim JJ, Zhang Y, Du L, Dai N. Prevalence and predictors of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:807-818.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Tauber M, Avouac J, Benahmed A, et al. Prevalence and predictors of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in systemic sclerosis patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32(6 suppl 86):S82-S87.
    Pubmed
  11. Adike A, DiBaise JK. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: nutritional implications, diagnosis, and management. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2018;47:193-208.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Ierardi E, Losurdo G, Iannone A, et al. Lymphocytic duodenitis or microscopic enteritis and gluten-related conditions: what needs to be explored?. Ann Gastroenterol 2017;30:380-392.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Rezaie A, Pimentel M, Rao SS. How to test and treat small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: an evidence-based approach. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2016;18:8.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Gasbarrini A, Corazza GR, Gasbarrini G, et al. Methodology and indications of H2-breath testing in gastrointestinal diseases: the Rome consensus conference. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;29(suppl 1):1-49.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Romagnuolo J, Schiller D, Bailey RJ. Using breath tests wisely in a gastroenterology practice: an evidence-based review of indications and pitfalls in interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1113-1126.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Miller MA, Parkman HP, Urbain JL, et al. Comparison of scintigraphy and lactulose breath hydrogen test for assessment of orocecal transit: lactulose accelerates small bowel transit. Dig Dis Sci 1997;42:10-18.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-396.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Berthold HK, Schober P, Scheurlen C, et al. Use of the lactose-[13C] ureide breath test for diagnosis of small bowel bacterial overgrowth: comparison to the glucose hydrogen breath test. J Gastroenterol 2009;44:944-951.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Corazza GR, Menozzi MG, Strocchi A, et al. The diagnosis of small bowel bacterial overgrowth. Reliability of jejunal culture and inadequacy of breath hydrogen testing. Gastroenterology 1990;98:302-309.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Donald IP, Kitchingmam G, Donald F, Kupfer RM. The diagnosis of small bowel bacterial overgrowth in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992;40:692-696.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Erdogan A, Rao SS, Gulley D, Jacobs C, Lee YY, Badger C. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: duodenal aspiration vs glucose breath test. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:481-489.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Ghoshal UC, Ghoshal U, Das K, Misra A. Utility of hydrogen breath tests in diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in malabsorption syndrome and its relationship with oro-cecal transit time. Indian J Gastroenterol 2006;25:6-10.
    Pubmed
  24. Ghoshal UC, Srivastava D, Ghoshal U, Misra A. Breath tests in the diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in patients with irritable bowel syndrome in comparison with quantitative upper gut aspirate culture. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;26:753-760.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Kaye SA, Lim SG, Taylor M, Patel S, Gillespie S, Black SM. Small bowel bacterial overgrowth in systemic sclerosis: detection using direct and indirect methods and treatment outcome. Br J Rheumatol 1995;34:265-269.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Kerlin P, Wong L. Breath hydrogen testing in bacterial overgrowth of the small intestine. Gastroenterology 1988;95:982-988.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. King CE, Toskes PP. Comparison of the 1-gram [14C]xylose, 10-gram lactulose-H2, and 80-gram glucose-H2 breath tests in patients with small intestine bacterial overgrowth. Gastroenterology 1986;91:1447-1451.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Mac Mahon M, Gibbons N, Mullins E, et al. Are hydrogen breath tests valid in the elderly?. Gerontology 1996;42:40-45.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Pignata C, Budillon G, Monaco G, et al. Jejunal bacterial overgrowth and intestinal permeability in children with immunodeficiency syndromes. Gut 1990;31:879-882.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  30. Rao SSC, Tan G, Abdulla H, Yu S, Larion S, Leelasinjaroen P. Does colectomy predispose to small intestinal bacterial (SIBO) and fungal overgrowth (SIFO)?. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2018;9:146.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  31. Stotzer PO, Kilander AF. Comparison of the 1-gram 14C-D-xylose breath test and the 50-gram hydrogen glucose breath test for diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Digestion 2000;61:165-171.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Sundin OH, Mendoza-Ladd A, Morales E, et al. Does a glucose-based hydrogen and methane breath test detect bacterial overgrowth in the jejunum?. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;30:e13350.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. Cochrane Training. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Available from URL: http://training.cochrane.org/handbook. (accessed 11 November, 2019).
  34. Leandro G. Meta analysis in medical research: the handbook for understanding and practice of meta analysis. Milan: The Bridge publishing 2018:1-147.
  35. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:31.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  36. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-536.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882-893.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Khoshini R, Dai SC, Lezcano S, Pimentel M. A systematic review of diagnostic tests for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:1443-1454.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  39. Chumpitazi BP, Weidler EM, Shulman RJ. Lactulose breath test gas production in childhood IBS is associated with intestinal transit and bowel movement frequency. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017;64:541-545.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  40. King TS, Elia M, Hunter JO. Abnormal colonic fermentation in irritable bowel syndrome. Lancet 1998;352:1187-1189.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Rumessen JJ, Nordgaard-Andersen I, Gudmand-Høyer E. Carbohydrate malabsorption: quantification by methane and hydrogen breath tests. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994;29:826-832.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Rezaie A, Buresi M, Lembo A, et al. Hydrogen and methane-based breath testing in gastrointestinal disorders: the North American consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:775-784.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  43. Grace E, Shaw C, Whelan K, Andreyev HJ. Review article: small intestinal bacterial overgrowth--prevalence, clinical features, current and developing diagnostic tests, and treatment. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;38:674-688.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Pérez Aisa A, García Gavilán MC, Alcaide García J, et al. [Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth is common after gastrectomy but with little impact on nutritional status]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;42:1-10 [Spanish].
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Sung HJ, Paik CN, Chung WC, Lee KM, Yang JM, Choi MG. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth diagnosed by glucose hydrogen breath test in post-cholecystectomy patients. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;21:545-551.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  46. Paik CN, Choi MG, Lim CH, et al. The role of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in postgastrectomy patients. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011;23:e191-e196.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Klaus J, Spaniol U, Adler G, et al. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth mimicking acute flare as a pitfall in patients with Crohn’s disease. BMC Gastroenterol 2009;9:61.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  48. Rana SV, Sharma S, Kaur J, Sinha SK, Singh K. Comparison of lactulose and glucose breath test for diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Digestion 2012;85:243-247.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Park JS, Yu JH, Lim HC, et al. [Usefulness of lactulose breath test for the prediction of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth in irritable bowel syndrome]. Korean J Gastroenterol 2010;56:242-248 [Korean].
    Pubmed CrossRef
  50. Ianiro G, Bibbò S, Gasbarrini A, Cammarota G. Therapeutic modulation of gut microbiota: current clinical applications and future perspectives. Curr Drug Targets 2014;15:762-770.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  51. Mello CS, Rodrigues MSDC, Filho HBA, et al. Fecal microbiota analysis of children with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth among residents of an urban slum in Brazil. J Pediatr 2018;94:483-490.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  52. Ghoshal UC. How to interpret hydrogen breath tests. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011;17:312-317.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  53. Saad RJ, Chey WD. Breath testing for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: maximizing test accuracy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:1964-1972.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Di Stefano M, Quigley EMM. The diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: two steps forward, one step backwards?. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;30:e13494.
    Pubmed CrossRef


This Article

e-submission

Archives

Aims and Scope