Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23836124›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013

Pharyngeal pH monitoring better predicts a successful outcome for extraesophageal reflux symptoms after antireflux surgery.

Stephanie G Worrell, Steven R DeMeester, Christina L Greene, Daniel S Oh, Jeffrey A Hagen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review article: Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Abilities of Oropharyngeal pH Tests and Salivary Pepsin Analysis to Discriminate Between Asymptomatic Volunteers and Subjects With Symptoms of Laryngeal Irritation.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2016
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Esophageal testing: What we have so far.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2016
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephanie G WorrellDivision of Thoracic Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St., Suite 514, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA, stephanie.worrell@med.usc.edu.
Steven R DeMeester
Christina L Greene
Daniel S Oh
Jeffrey A Hagen
Southern California University for Professional Studies · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastroesophageal reflux disease can be associated with extraesophageal symptoms (hoarseness, cough, asthma, and globus). However, these symptoms may have a multifactorial etiology. Proximal pH monitoring has been proposed as a means of identifying patients where reflux is the cause of the extraesophageal symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine whether proximal esophageal or pharyngeal pH monitoring better identified patients with extraesophageal symptoms that improved after antireflux surgery.

methodsA retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who had esophageal and pharyngeal pH monitoring before an antireflux operation. A composite score was used to define an abnormal result with each test. A successful outcome was defined as improvement or resolution of extraesophageal symptoms.

resultsThere were 20 patients identified. Antireflux surgery led to a successful outcome in 14 patients (70 %). Restech better identified patients with extraesophageal symptoms who had a successful outcome with antireflux surgery (12 of 14 [86 %] based on abnormal Restech versus 5 of 10 [50 %] based on abnormal proximal probe, p = 0.06). Comparing only the 15 patients who had both proximal esophageal and pharyngeal pH monitoring, Restech again better identified those who had a successful outcome with antireflux surgery (9 of 10 [90 %] based on abnormal Restech versus 5 of 10 [50 %] based on abnormal proximal probe, p = 0.05). The positive and negative predictive values for symptomatic improvement after a fundoplication were better for an abnormal Restech score than for an abnormal proximal esophageal score (80 vs. 71 % and 60 vs. 38 %, respectively). In two patients with a successful outcome, Restech was the only positive test.

conclusionsIn patients with extraesophageal reflux symptoms, proximal esophageal pH monitoring failed to identify half of the patients who had a successful outcome after antireflux surgery. In contrast, an abnormal Restech pH test was present in 90 % of patients with a successful outcome. Further, a negative Restech study more reliably indicated the absence of reflux-induced extraesophageal symptoms. Our results indicate that Restech pharyngeal pH monitoring should be utilized in the evaluation of patients with extraesophageal symptoms that may be associated with reflux disease.

Indexed as

Esophageal pH MonitoringAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCoughFemaleFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHoarsenessHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23836124
OpenAlexW2104750984

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.