Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35864359›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2022

Does hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux have to be 24 h?

Jinhong Zhang, Xiaoyu Wang, Jiasen Wang, Jing Zhao, Chun Zhang, Zhi Liu, Jinrang Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jinhong ZhangDepartment of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, China.
Xiaoyu WangDepartment of Otolaryngology, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, 100048, China.
Jiasen WangDepartment of Otolaryngology, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, 100048, China.
Jing ZhaoDepartment of Otolaryngology, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, 100048, China.
Chun ZhangDepartment of Otolaryngology, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, 100048, China.
Zhi LiuDepartment of Otolaryngology, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, 100048, China.
Jinrang LiDepartment of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, China. entljr@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8260-2202
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the diagnostic value of combined multi-timepoint salivary pepsin testing (MTPSPT) and hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and whether an appropriate reduction in the duration of HEMII-pH would affect the accuracy of diagnosis of LPR.

methodsRecruited patients were studied with both MTPSPT and HEMII-pH. The diagnosis of LPR was based on the occurrence of > 1 reflux event and/or positive results on any of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value of combined diagnosis was studied through combining a breakdown of the 24-h HEMII-pH finding and the results of the MTPSPT. The diagnostic value was expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

resultsBased on 24-h HEMII-pH and MTPSPT, the positive rate of LPR was 83.33% and 74.69%, respectively. According to the combined diagnosis, the positive rate of LPR was 90.74%. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined diagnosis both were 89.51% and 100%, when the HEMII-pH intervals were 7 a.m.-6 p.m. and 7 a.m.-7 p.m., respectively. However, when the monitoring time was extended to 8 p.m. and bedtime, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the combined diagnosis both were 100%.

conclusionsThe combination of MTPSPT and HEMII-pH increased the sensitivity and accuracy of diagnosis of LPR. For patients with positive MTPSPT results, the duration of HEMII-pH can be appropriately shortened to reduce patient sufferings.

Indexed as

Laryngopharyngeal RefluxElectric ImpedanceEsophageal pH MonitoringHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationPepsin ARetrospective StudiesPepsin ACombined diagnosisHEMII–pHLPRSalivary pepsin

Identifiers

PMID35864359
OpenAlexW4286203350

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.