ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessing the role of dryness and burning sensation in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is a condition characterized by the regurgitation of stomach and duodenal contents into the laryngopharynx, with variable and non-specific symptoms. Therefore, developing an accurate symptom scale for different regions is essential. Notably, the symptoms of "dryness and burning sensation in the laryngopharynx or mouth" are prevalent among the Chinese population but are often omitted from conventional symptom assessment scales, such as the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Symptom Score-12 (RSS-12) scales. To address this gap, our study incorporated the symptoms into the RSI and RSS-12 scales, developing the RSI-10/RSS-13 scales. Afterward, we assessed the role of the new scale's reliability (Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis), and diagnostic efficiency. Our study encompassed 479 participants (average = 39.5 ± 13.4 years, 242 female) and 91 (average = 34.01 ± 13.50 years, 44 female) completed 24 h MII-pH monitoring. The Cronbach's α values of 0.80 and 0.82 for the RSI-10 and RSS-13 scales, respectively. RSI-10 and RSS-13 exhibited strong test-retest reliability (ICCs = 0.82-0.96) and diagnostic efficacy (AUC = 0.84-0.85). Furthermore, the factor analysis identified the RSS-13 and its three sub-scales (ear-nose-throat, digestive tract, respiratory tract) exhibited good to excellent structural validity (χ
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.