To investigate the psychometric properties of the reflux symptom index (RSI) as short screening approach for the diagnostic of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with confirmed diagnosed regarding the 24-hour multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH).
Methods:
From January 2017 to December 2018, 56 patients with LPR symptoms and 71 healthy individuals (control group) were prospectively enrolled. The LPR diagnosis was confirmed through MII-pH results. All subjects (n = 127) fulfilled RSI and the Reflux Finding Score (RFS) was performed through flexible fiberoptic endoscopy. The sensitivity and the specificity of RSI was assessed by ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis.
Results:
A total of 15 LPR patients (26.8%) of the clinical group met MII-pH diagnostic criteria. Among subjects classified as positive for MII- pH diagnoses, RSI and RFS mean scores were respectively 20 (SD ± 10.5) and 7.1 (SD ± 2.5), values not significantly different compared to the negative MII-pH group. The metric analysis of the items led to the realization of a binary recoding of the score. Both versions had similar psychometric properties, α was 0.840 for RSI original version and 0.836 for RSI binary version. High and comparable area under curve (AUC) values indicate a good ability of both scales to discriminate between individuals with and without LPR pathology diagnosis. Based on balanced sensitivity and specificity, the optimal cut-off scores for LPR pathology were ≥ 5 for RSI binary version and ≥ 15 for RSI original version. Both version overestimated LPR prevalence. The original version had more sensitivity and the RSI Binary version had more specificity.
Conclusions:
It would be necessary to think about modifying the original RSI in order to improve its sensitivity and specificity (RSI binary version, adding or changing some items), or to introduce new scores in order to better frame the probably affected of LPR patient.
LechienJRSchindlerAHamdanAL, et al. The development of new clinical instruments in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: The international project of young otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2018;135(5S):S85-S91.
2.
SalihefendicNZildzicMCabricE.Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease - LPRD. Med Arch. 2017;71(3):215-218.
3.
KaryantaMSatrowiyotoSWulandariDP.Prevalence ratio of Otitis media with effusion in laryngopharyngeal reflux. Int J Otolaryngol. 2019; 2019:7460891.
4.
ParsonsJPMastronardeJG.Gastroesophageal reflux disease and asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2010;16(1):60-63.
5.
MureşanIPicosAGradSDumitrascuDL.Respiratory involvement in the gastroesophageal reflux disesease. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2011;115(3):662-671.
6.
RenJJZhaoYWangJ, et al. PepsinA as a Marker of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Detected in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(5):893-900.
7.
ElhennawiDMAhmedMRAbou-halawaAS.Correlation of obstructive sleep apnea and laryngopharyngeal reflux: phmetry study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(6):758-761.
8.
MagliuloGIannellaGPolimeniA, et al. Laryngopharyngeal reflux in obstructive sleep apnoea patients:Literature review and meta-analysis. Am J Otolaryngol. 2018;39(6):776-780.
9.
PreethaASujathaDPatilBAHegdeS.Oral manifestations in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gen Dent. 2015;63(3):e27-e31.
10.
MarsicanoJAde Moura-GrecPGBonatoRC, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux, dental erosion, and halitosis in epidemiological surveys: a systematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(2):135-141.
11.
GalliJCalòLAgostinoS.Bile reflux as possible risk factor in laryngopharyngeal inflammatory and neoplastic lesions. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2003;23(5):377-382.
12.
SasakiCTMarottaJHundalJChowJEisenRN.Bile-induced laryngitis: is there a basis in evidence?Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114(3):192-197.
13.
De BortoliNNacciASavarinoE, et al. How many cases of laryngopharyngeal reflux suspected by laryngoscopy are gastroesophageal reflux disease-related?World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(32):4363-4370.
14.
LechienJRSaussezSNacciA, et al. Association between laryngopharyngeal reflux and benign vocal folds lesions: a systematic review. Laryngoscope. 2019; 129(9):E329-E341.
15.
HoppoTZaidiAHMatsuiD, et al. Sep70/Pepsin expression in hypopharynx combined with hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance increases diagnostic sensitivity of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2434-2441.
16.
LechienJRAkstLMHamdanAL, et al. Evaluation and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: state of the art review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;160(5):762-782.
17.
HilaAAgrawalACastellDO.Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH esophageal testing compared to pH alone for diagnosing both acid and weakly acidic gastroesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(2):172-177.
18.
LeeBEKimGHRyuDY, et al. Combined dual channel impedance pH-metry in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;16(2): 157-165.
19.
LechienJRMouawadFMortuaireG, et al. Awareness of European otolaryngologists and general practitioners toward laryngopharyngeal reflux. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2019;128(11):1030-1040.
20.
BelafskyPCPostmaGNKoufmanJA.The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:1313-1317.
21.
BelafskyPCPostmaGNKoufmanJA.Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). JVoice. 2002;16(2):274-277.
22.
GelardiMSilvestriMCiprandiG.Correlation between the reflux finding score and the reflux symptom index in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018;32(1suppl 2):29-31.
23.
ChangBAMacNeilSDMorrisonMDLeePK.The reliability of the reflux finding score among general otolaryngologists. J Voice. 2015;29(5):572-577.
24.
MartinucciIde BortoliNSavarinoE, et al. Optimal treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2013;4(6):287-301.
25.
WeiC.A meta-analysis for the role of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(11):3795-3801.
26.
WilkieMDFraserHMRajaH.Gaviscon® Advance alone versus co-prescription of Gaviscon® advance and proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275:2515.
27.
ZalvanCHHuSGreenbergBGeliebterJ.A comparison of alkaline water and mediterranean diet vs proton pump inhibition for treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143(10):1023-1029.
28.
LechienJRHuetKKhalifeM, et al. Alkaline, protein, low-fat and low-acid diet in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: our experience on 65 patients. Clin Otolaryngol. 2019;44(3):379-384.
29.
KoufmanJA.Low-acid diet for recalcitrant laryngopharyngeal reflux: therapeutic benefits and their implications. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120(5):281-287.
30.
LinRJSridharanSSmithLJYoungVNRosenCA.Weaning of proton pump inhibitors in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(1):133-137.
31.
NoordzijJPKhidrADesperE, et al. Correlation of pH probe-measured laryngopharyngeal reflux with symptoms and signs of reflux laryngitis. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(12):2192-2195.
32.
VaeziMF.Laryngitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease: increasing prevalence or poor diagnostic tests?Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(5):786-788.
33.
SchindlerAMozzanicaFGinocchioD, et al. Reliability and clinical validity of the Italian Reflux Symptom Index. J Voice. 2010;24(3):354-358.
34.
Al-SheikhBChandrasekarVStuebeT.Multichannel intra-luminal impedance signals variability during gastro-oesophageal activities. J Med Eng Technol. 2017;41(4):275-287.
35.
ZentilinPIiritanoEDulbeccoP, et al. Normal values of 24-h ambulatory intraluminal impedance combined with pH-metry in subjects eating a Mediterranean diet. Dig Liver Dis. 2006;38(4):226-232.
36.
GifiA. Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis. New York: Wiley; 1990.
37.
GuttmanL. The quantification of a class of attributes: A theory and method of scale construction. In: HorstPWallinPGuttmanL, eds. The prediction of personal adjustment. New York: Social Science Research Council; 1941.
38.
AnisMMRazaviMMXiaoXSolimanAMS. Association of gastroesophageal reflux disease and laryngeal cancer. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;4(4):278-281.
39.
SataloffRTHawkshawMJGuptaR.Laryngopharyngeal reflux and voice disorders: an overview on disease mechanisms, treatments, and research advances. Discov Med. 2010;10(52):213-224.
40.
WatsonNAKwameIOakeshottPReidFRubinJS.Comparing the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux between the reflux symptom index, clinical consultation and reflux finding score in a group of patients presenting to an ENT clinic with an interest in voice disorders: a pilot study in thirty-five patients. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38(4):329-333.
41.
ChenMHouCChenT, et al. Reflux symptom index and reflux finding score in 91 asymptomatic volunteers. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018;138(7):659-663.
42.
DuricekMBanovcinPHalickovaTHyrdelRKollarikM.Acidic pharyngeal reflux does not correlate with symptoms and laryngeal injury attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(5):1270-1280.
43.
NeriGPuglieseMCastriottaA, et al. White-line: a new finding in laryngopharyngeal reflux objective evaluation. Med Hypotheses. 2013;80(6):769-772.
44.
GaoC-KLiY-FWangL, et al. Different cutoffs of the reflux finding score for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux disease be used for different genders. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018;138(9):848-854.
45.
LiJZhangLZhangC, et al. Linguistic adaptation, reliability, validation, and responsivity of the Chinese version of Reflux Symptom Index. J Voice. 2016;30(1):104-108.
46.
LapeñaJFFJrAmbrocioGMCCarrilloRJD.Validity and reliability of the Filipino Reflux Symptom Index. J Voice. 2017; 31(3):387.e11-387.e16.
47.
LechienJRBobinFMulsV, et al. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom score. Laryngoscope. 2019;130(3):E98-E107.doi:10.1002/lary.28017.
48.
LechienJRHuetKFinckC, et al. Validity and reliability of a French version of Reflux Symptom Index. J Voice. 2017;31(4):512.e1-512.e7.
49.
Calvo-HenríquezCRuano-RavinaAVaamondePMartínez-CapoccioniGMartín-MartínC.Is pepsin a reliable marker of laryngopharyngeal reflux? A systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;157(3):385-391.
50.
NaSYKwonOELeeYCEunYG.Optimal timing of saliva collection to detect pepsin in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(12):2770-2773.
51.
OelschlagerBKChangLPopeCE2ndPellegriniCA.Typical GERD symptoms and esophageal pH monitoring are not enough to diagnose pharyngeal reflux. J Surg Res. 2005;128(1):55-60.
52.
MuderrisTGokcanMKYorulmazI.The clinical value of pharyngeal pH monitoring using a double-probe, triple-sensor catheter in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(2):163-167.
53.
SpyridouliasALilliSVyasAFowlerSJ.Detecting laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with upper airways symptoms: Symptoms, signs or salivary pepsin?Respir Med. 2015; 109(8):963-969.
54.
MesallamTAMalkiKHFarahatMBukhariMAlharethyS.Voice problems among laryngopharyngeal reflux patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(6):280-287.
55.
LloydATHoffman RuddyBSilvermanELewisVMLehmanJL.Quantifying laryngopharyngeal reflux in singers: perceptual and objective findings. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 3918214.
56.
QiZWZhangSJZhangYLSuRFHuangYY.Application of reflux symptom index in diagnosis of allergic patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2018;32(22):1711-1713. Chinese.
57.
KawamuraOHosakaHShimoyamaY, et al. Evaluation of proton pump inhibitor-resistant nonerosive reflux disease by esophageal manometry and 24-hour esophageal impedance and pH monitoring. Digestion2015;91:19-25.
58.
WangFLiPJiGZ, et al. An analysis of 342 patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms using questionnaires, high-resolution manometry, and impedance-pH monitoring. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e5906.
59.
MainieITutuianRShayS, et al. Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicentre study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring. Gut. 2006; 55:1398-1402.
60.
RanaldoNLosurdoGIannoneA, et al. Tailored therapy guided by multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring for refractory non-erosive reflux disease. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:e3040.
61.
SavarinoEZentilinPTutuianR, et al. The role of nonacid reflux in NERD: lessons learned from impedance-pH monitoring in 150 patients off therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2685-2693.
62.
SavarinoEZentilinPTutuianR, et al. Impedance-pH reflux patterns can differentiate non-erosive reflux disease from functional heartburn patients. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:159-168.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
