Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21735285›Full record

ReviewHNO2011

[Extraesophageal reflux. Overview and discussion of a new method for pH monitoring].

M Jungheim, M Ptok

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in HNO, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M JungheimKlinik und Poliklinik für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. jungheim.michael@mh-hannover.de
M Ptok

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtraesophageal reflux disease often requires diagnosis and treatment by a phoniatry or ear, nose and throat specialist. The disease needs to be differentiated from gastroesophageal reflux disease.

objectiveA new oropharyngeal pH measuring system with a single channel probe has recently been introduced. The aim of this study was to compare oropharyngeal pH-metry with the existing diagnostic methods for extraesophageal reflux disease and to present initial results in our own patients.

methodsA literature search for oropharyngeal pH-metry was performed in the databases NHS EED, HTA, DARE, Clinical trials, Cochrane reviews and Medline/PubMed. A selective literature search was also carried out on the problem of extraesophageal reflux disease.

resultsEvaluation scales, trial proton pump inhibitor therapy or pH-metry, for example, can be used to diagnose extraesophageal reflux disease. pH-metry can be performed using a classical two-channel pH-metry system; a new oropharyngeal pH measuring system has recently been introduced. This new method has been evaluated in initial studies for normative data and has been compared to two-channel pH-metry. Prospective randomised studies to diagnose extraesophageal reflux disease with the new oropharyngeal pH-metry method are still lacking. DISCUSSION: Oropharyngeal pH-metry has some potential advantages compared to classical two-channel pH-metry; however, a lot of questions remain unanswered. These will be discussed and illustrated with the help of a number of own patient case reports.

Indexed as

Circadian RhythmCooperative BehaviorDiagnosis, DifferentialEquipment DesignEsophageal pH MonitoringGastric AcidGastroesophageal RefluxHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationLaryngopharyngeal RefluxLaryngoscopyPepsin AProton Pump InhibitorsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedPepsin AProton Pump Inhibitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.