Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27091320›Full record

Observational studyThe American journal of gastroenterology2016

Oropharyngeal pH Testing Does Not Predict Response to Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy in Patients with Laryngeal Symptoms.

Rena Yadlapati, John E Pandolfino, Alcina K Lidder, Nadine Shabeeb, Diana-Marie Jaiyeola, Christopher Adkins, Neelima Agrawal, Andrew Cooper, Caroline P E Price, Jody D Ciolino and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01755221 (A Prospective Evaluation of the Utility, Optimal Cutoff and Positive Predictive Value of a Pharyngeal Potential of Hydrogen), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT01755221 completednot on this map

A Prospective Evaluation of the Utility, Optimal Cutoff and Positive Predictive Value of a Pharyngeal Potential of Hydrogen (pH) Probe for Predicting Proton Pump Inhibitor Response in Treatment Naive Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

TypeobservationalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2012 to 2016Enrolled42ConditionsLaryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR), Extraesophageal Reflux, Reflux Laryngitis, Posterior Laryngitis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Clinical Use of Esophageal Physiologic Testing.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Reflux Testing: Wireless pH, Impedance-pH, and Mucosal Impedance.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Validated Clinical Score to Predict Gastroesophageal Reflux in Patients With Chronic Laryngeal Symptoms: COuGH RefluX.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Article
  7. Review article: Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Impact ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Reflux Following Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Why differences between New York and New Delhi matter in approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2019
    Article
  18. Association between laryngopharyngeal reflux disease and autonomic nerve dysfunction.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Rena YadlapatiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
John E PandolfinoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Alcina K LidderUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Nadine ShabeebUniversity of Indiana School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Diana-Marie JaiyeolaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Christopher AdkinsDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Neelima AgrawalDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Andrew CooperDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Caroline P E PriceDivision of Otolaryngology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jody D CiolinoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Andrew J GawronDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Stephanie S SmithDivision of Otolaryngology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Michiel BoveDivision of Otolaryngology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Bruce K TanDivision of Otolaryngology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
Northwestern University Patient-centered Intervention and Engagement TrainingK12HS023011 · AHRQ · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CELLA, DAVID · 2014 to 2018
$3.7M
Training Grant in Gastrointestinal Physiology and PsychologyT32DK101363 · NIDDK · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI PANDOLFINO, JOHN E · 2014 to 2018
$1.2M
AHRQ HHS K12 HS023011NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK101363
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPredicting response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with laryngeal symptoms is challenging. The Restech Dx-pH probe is a transnasal catheter that measures oropharyngeal pH. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prognostic potential of oropharyngeal pH monitoring to predict responsiveness to PPI therapy in patients with laryngeal symptoms.

methodsWe conducted a physician-blinded prospective cohort study at a single academic institution between January 2013 and October 2014. Adult patients with Reflux Symptom Index scores (RSI) ≥13 off PPI therapy were recruited. Patients underwent video laryngoscopy and 24-h oropharyngeal pH monitoring, followed by an 8- to 12-week trial of omeprazole 40 mg daily. Prior to and following PPI therapy, patients completed various symptom questionnaires. The primary outcome was the association between PPI response and oropharyngeal pH metrics. PPI response was separated into three subgroups based on the post-treatment RSI score and % RSI response: non-response=RSI ≥13; partial response=post-treatment RSI <13 and change in RSI <50%; and complete response=post-treatment RSI <13 and change in RSI ≥50%. The primary analysis utilized a multinomial logistic regression controlling for the pre-treatment RSI score. A secondary analysis assessed the relationship between the change in RSI (post-pre) and oropharyngeal pH metrics via ordinary least square regression.

resultsThirty-four patients completed the study and were included in final analysis. Symptom response to PPI therapy was as follows: 50% no response, 15% partial response, and 35% complete response. Non-responders had a higher pre-treatment RSI (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal acid exposure (below pH of 4.0, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and RYAN scores) between responder types. The secondary analysis noted a trend between lower PPI response and a greater total percent time below pH of 5.0 (P=0.03), upright percent time below pH of 5.0 (P=0.07), and RYAN supine (corrected; P=0.03), as well as an association between PPI response and greater decreases in the Anxiety Sensitivity Inventory (P<0.01), Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (P<0.01), and Negative Affect Scale (P<0.01).

conclusionsOropharyngeal pH testing did not predict laryngeal symptom response to PPI therapy. Contrary to hypothesis, our study signaled that the degree of oropharyngeal acid exposure is inversely related to PPI response. In addition, reduction in negative affect and psychological distress parallels PPI response.

Indexed as

Hydrogen-Ion ConcentrationOropharynxAdultChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesCoughDeglutition DisordersFemaleHoarsenessHumansLaryngopharyngeal RefluxLaryngoscopyLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOmeprazoleOmeprazoleProton Pump Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID27091320
PMCPMC5071144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.