ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Validation and Reliability of Polish Version of the Reflux Symptoms Index and Reflux Finding Score.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and Reliability of the Reflux Symptoms Index Translated into Indonesian: The Role of Upper Endoscopy in Assessing Extra-Esophageal Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptoms.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2023Article
- Validation of the Reflux Symptom Index in French-Speaking Quebec Patients.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: To confirm the credibility, consistency, and replicability of the Polish versions of the Reflux Symptoms Index (PL-RSI) and the Reflux Finding Score (PL-RFS). (2) Methods: The translation followed the WHO recommendations. The study group included 100 volunteers (age 15−87) with hoarseness and pharyngolaryngeal complaints. The control group comprised 55 healthy volunteers (age 20−75). Study participants completed the PL-RSI; then, two independent otolaryngologists completed the PL-RFS based on pharyngeal videostroboscopy. Questionnaires were repeated after 7 days, with no treatment before the second round. Additionally, patients underwent 24 h pH-metry. The control group had a single round of questionnaires followed by pH-metry. (3) Results: The PL-RSI is consistent, reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.77−0.83; test−retest reliability 0.83), and significantly correlated with other patient-filled tools (p < 0.001). The PL-RFS intra-rater reliability is 0.84−0.91, and inter-rater is 0.88. Both questionnaires strongly correlate with pH-metry (PL-RSI upright Ryan Score 0.35, PL-RFS—0.60). Both clearly distinguish (i) healthy from persons with voice disorders, but without acid LPR (p < 0.0001), and (ii) within patient group between subjects with and without acid LPR (p = 0.0002). (4) Conclusions: The PL-RSI and PL-RFS are reliable and can be recommended to Polish-speaking otolaryngologists. Our findings confirm the role of country-specific factors in RSI results and that practitioners should always use a proper control group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.