Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27495070›Full record

ArticleMedicine2016

The suitability of the GERDyzer instrument in pH-test-proven laryngopharyngeal reflux patients.

Cheng-Pin Wu, Wen-Miin Liang, Chen-Chi Wang, Chi-Sen Chang, Hong-Zen Yeh, Jeng-Yuan Hsu, Chung-Wang Ko, Shou-Wu Lee, Shu-Chuan Chang, Fung-Chang Sung and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors.

Cheng-Pin WuHealth Examination Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan Preventive Medicine Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan Graduate Institute of Biostatistics, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan Department of Otolaryngology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan School of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan Division of Gastroenterology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan Department of Internal Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan Department of Internal Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan Division of Chest Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan Department of Nursing, Central Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taichung, Taiwan Management Office for Health Data, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan Institute of Clinical Medical Science, China Medical University College of Medicine, Taichung, Taiwan.
Wen-Miin Liang
Chen-Chi Wang
Chi-Sen Chang
Hong-Zen Yeh
Jeng-Yuan Hsu
Chung-Wang Ko
Shou-Wu Lee
Shu-Chuan Chang
Fung-Chang Sung
Han-Chung Lien

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for the treatment outcome measure of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is crucial given the lack of objective markers. However, current symptom-based PRO instruments can only partially capture the impact of LPR. The GERD Analyzer (GERDyzer), an existing disease-specific PRO instrument, which measures multidimensional health-related quality of life (HRQL) affected by the illness rather than by any specific symptoms, has been validated in patients with erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration PRO guidance, we cross-culturally adapted the GERDyzer instrument into Chinese, and examined the qualitative and quantitative psychometric properties of the Chinese version GERDyzer in pH-test-proven LPR patients.The GERDyzer comprises 10 dimensions of HRQL, including general well-being, pain/discomfort, physical health, diet, energy, activities, leisure activities, social life, mood, and sleep. To examine the content validity, we recruited 26 pH-test-proven LPR participants to conduct 4 focus group meetings for direct patient input on clinical manifestations and HRQL impacts. We also tested the quantitative psychometric properties, including reliability, validity, and responsiveness in 100 pH-test-proven LPR patients.Saturation of concept elicitation was achieved from the 4 focus groups, and a strong conceptual match was evident between the GERDyzer contents and responses from the focus group participants. Cognitive debriefing assessment showed that the Chinese version GERDyzer was adequate for use by patients as it demonstrated linguistic validation and cultural harmonization. Quantitative psychometric properties showed evidence of high internal consistency (Cronbach α: 0.96), good to excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.84-0.98). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 2-factor structure. Convergent validity was confirmed by moderate correlation assessments referencing the Reflux Symptoms Index and the Reflux Questionnaire. The discriminant validity was supported by the ability to discriminate moderate-to-severe disease from mild disease. The responsiveness was also high in participants with and without typical GERD symptoms (effect sizes 1.20 and 1.21, respectively).In conclusion, the Chinese version GERDyzer instrument is a reliable, valid, and responsive instrument for assessing HRQL in Taiwanese patients with LPR.

Indexed as

Culturally Competent CareAdultCohort StudiesDiagnostic Techniques, Digestive SystemEquipment DesignEquipment SafetyFemaleFocus GroupsGastroesophageal RefluxHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationLaryngopharyngeal RefluxMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID27495070
PMCPMC4979824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.