Selected Papers from the 1st International Electronic Conference on Biosensors (IECB 2020)

The scope of this Special Issue is to collect some of the contributions to the First International Electronic Conference on Biosensors, which was held to bring together well-known experts currently working in biosensor technologies from around the globe, and to provide an online forum for presenting and discussing new results. The world of biosensors is definitively a versatile and universally applicable one, as demonstrated by the wide range of topics which were addressed at the Conference, such as: bioengineered and biomimetic receptors; microfluidics for biosensing; biosensors for emergency situations; nanotechnologies and nanomaterials for biosensors; intra- and extracellular biosensing; and advanced applications in clinical, environmental, food safety, and cultural heritage fields

Diagnostic Performance of Magnifying Endoscopy for <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Infection: A Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>Diagnosis of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> (<i>H</i>. <i>pylori</i>) infection using magnifying endoscopy offers advantages over conventional invasive and noninvasive tests.</p><p>Objective</p><p>This meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of magnifying endoscopy in the prediction of <i>H</i>. <i>pylori</i> infection.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A literature search of the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Direct and the Cochrane Library databases was performed. A random-effects model was used to calculate the diagnostic efficiency of magnifying endoscopy for <i>H</i>. <i>pylori</i> infection. A summary receiver operator characteristic curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.</p><p>Results</p><p>A total of 18 studies involving 1897 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of magnifying endoscopy to predict <i>H</i>. <i>pylori</i> infection were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87–0.91] and 0.82 (95%CI 0.79–0.85), respectively, with an AUC of 0.9461. When targeting the gastric antrum, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95%CI 0.78–0.86) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.66–0.78), respectively. When targeting the gastric corpus, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95%CI 0.90–0.94) and 0.86 (95%CI 0.82–0.88), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using magnifying white light endoscopy were 0.90 (95%CI 0.87–0.91) and 0.81 (95%CI 0.77–0.84), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using magnifying chromoendoscopy were 0.87 (95%CI 0.83–0.91) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.80–0.88), respectively. The “pit plus vascular pattern” classification in the gastric corpus observed by magnifying endoscopy was able to accurately predict the status of <i>H</i>. <i>pylori</i> infection, as indicated by a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95%CI 0.94–0.97) and 0.91 (95%CI 0.87–0.93), respectively, with an AUC of 0.9872.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Magnifying endoscopy was able to accurately predict the status of <i>H</i>. <i>pylori</i> infection, either in magnifying white light endoscopy or magnifying chromoendoscopy mode. The “pit plus vascular pattern” classification in the gastric corpus is an optimum diagnostic criterion.</p></div