BACKGROUND: Both simple proportions and statistical tests are utilised for symptom-reflux association. We systematically compared three such tests in a clinical setting. AIM: To compare the three commonly used symptom reflux association tests in a large cohort of patients undergoing ambulatory pH monitoring for the evaluation of oesophageal symptoms. METHODS: Ambulatory pH data from 772 symptomatic subjects (49.1 ± 0.5 years; 479 F) tested off therapy were assessed for acid exposure time (AET, elevated when pH <4 for ≥4%), symptom index (SI, ≥50% when positive), and symptom association probability (SAP) and Ghillebert probability estimate (GPE, P < 0.05 when positive). Test concordance and discordance were individually assessed; discordance between statistical tests was minor if one had P < 0.1 while the other was positive. Logistic regression determined independent predictors of test discordance. RESULTS: The SAP, GPE and SI were positive in 42.7%, 39.3% and 33.9% respectively. GPE performed extremely well compared to SAP (sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.91), with major discordance in only 2.8%. Positive concordance was significantly higher when AET was abnormal. GPE underestimated symptom association compared to SAP, whereas SAP was subject to symptom over-counting in 33.3% of discordant cases. GPE-SAP discordance was associated with higher AET (7.5% vs. 5.1%) and more symptoms (19.3 vs. 10.7, P > 0.001 for each comparison with concordant tests); both remained significant on logistic regression analysis (P ≤ 0.003). SI was discordant with SAP when symptoms were extremely frequent (median 19, IQR 10-32) or limited (median 1, IQR 1-2), and concordant when median 6 symptoms (IQR 3-12) were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The GPE can be used interchangeably with SAP in symptom reflux association. SI has uncertain value with very high and very low symptom counts.
BACKGROUND: Both simple proportions and statistical tests are utilised for symptom-reflux association. We systematically compared three such tests in a clinical setting. AIM: To compare the three commonly used symptom reflux association tests in a large cohort of patients undergoing ambulatory pH monitoring for the evaluation of oesophageal symptoms. METHODS: Ambulatory pH data from 772 symptomatic subjects (49.1 ± 0.5 years; 479 F) tested off therapy were assessed for acid exposure time (AET, elevated when pH <4 for ≥4%), symptom index (SI, ≥50% when positive), and symptom association probability (SAP) and Ghillebert probability estimate (GPE, P < 0.05 when positive). Test concordance and discordance were individually assessed; discordance between statistical tests was minor if one had P < 0.1 while the other was positive. Logistic regression determined independent predictors of test discordance. RESULTS: The SAP, GPE and SI were positive in 42.7%, 39.3% and 33.9% respectively. GPE performed extremely well compared to SAP (sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.91), with major discordance in only 2.8%. Positive concordance was significantly higher when AET was abnormal. GPE underestimated symptom association compared to SAP, whereas SAP was subject to symptom over-counting in 33.3% of discordant cases. GPE-SAP discordance was associated with higher AET (7.5% vs. 5.1%) and more symptoms (19.3 vs. 10.7, P > 0.001 for each comparison with concordant tests); both remained significant on logistic regression analysis (P ≤ 0.003). SI was discordant with SAP when symptoms were extremely frequent (median 19, IQR 10-32) or limited (median 1, IQR 1-2), and concordant when median 6 symptoms (IQR 3-12) were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The GPE can be used interchangeably with SAP in symptom reflux association. SI has uncertain value with very high and very low symptom counts.
Authors: G M Campos; J H Peters; T R DeMeester; S Oberg; P F Crookes; S Tan; S R DeMeester; J A Hagen; C G Bremner Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: S A Taghavi; M Ghasedi; M Saberi-Firoozi; M Alizadeh-Naeeni; K Bagheri-Lankarani; M J Kaviani; L Hamidpour Journal: Gut Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: James C Slaughter; Marion Goutte; Jennifer A Rymer; Amanke C Oranu; Jonathan A Schneider; C Gaelyn Garrett; David Hagaman; Michael F Vaezi Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Valentin Becker; Stefan Grotz; Christoph Schlag; Simon Nennstiel; Analena Beitz; Bernhard Haller; Roland M Schmid; Alexander Meining; Monther Bajbouj Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.742