Jerome R Lechien1,2,3, Antonio Schindler1,4, Lisa G De Marrez1, Abdul Latif Hamdan5, Petros D Karkos1,6, Bernard Harmegnies1,2, Maria Rosaria Barillari1,7,8, Camille Finck1,2,9, Sven Saussez1,3. 1. Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Study Group of Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Mons. 2. Department of Anatomy and Experimental Oncology, Mons School of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, Mons. 3. Laboratory of Phonetics, Faculty of Psychology, Research Institute for Language Sciences and Technology , University of Mons (UMons), Mons. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Saint-Pierre, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, CHU de Liège, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 6. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Phoniatric Unit, L. Sacco Hospital, University of Milan, Milan. 7. Division of Phoniatrics and Audiology, Department of Mental and Physical Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Naples SUN, Naples, Italy. 8. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece. 9. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, American University of Beirut-Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the instruments for evaluating the clinical findings (ICFs) of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) designed for use with regard to diagnosis and treatment effectiveness. METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were used to search for subject headings following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Three investigators retrieved relevant studies published between 1990 and 2018 describing the evolution of laryngopharyngeal findings throughout LPR treatment. Issues of clinical relevance, that is, LPR diagnosis, treatments, and signs assessed for diagnosis or as therapeutic outcomes, were assessed. The investigators also evaluated the psychometric properties (conceptual model, content validity, consistency, reliability, concordance, convergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness to change, and interpretability) of the ICF. The risk of bias was assessed with the tool of the Clarity Group and Evidence Partners. RESULTS: The search identified 1,227 publications with a total of 4,735 LPR patients; of these studies, 53 met the inclusion criteria. Of these 53 studies, we identified 10 unvalidated and six validated ICFs. None of the validated ICFs included all the psychometric properties. The main identified deficiencies related to ICF psychometric validation included variable construct validity, disparate and uncertain reliabilities, and a lack of interpretability. The lack of consideration of certain LPR laryngeal and extralaryngeal signs is the main weakness of ICFs, biasing content, and construct validities. CONCLUSION: The low specificity of LPR signs, the lack of consideration of many findings, and the absence of a gold standard for diagnosis constitute barriers to the further validation of these ICFs. Additional studies are needed to develop complete and reliable ICFs. Laryngoscope, 129:720-736, 2019.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the instruments for evaluating the clinical findings (ICFs) of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) designed for use with regard to diagnosis and treatment effectiveness. METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were used to search for subject headings following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Three investigators retrieved relevant studies published between 1990 and 2018 describing the evolution of laryngopharyngeal findings throughout LPR treatment. Issues of clinical relevance, that is, LPR diagnosis, treatments, and signs assessed for diagnosis or as therapeutic outcomes, were assessed. The investigators also evaluated the psychometric properties (conceptual model, content validity, consistency, reliability, concordance, convergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness to change, and interpretability) of the ICF. The risk of bias was assessed with the tool of the Clarity Group and Evidence Partners. RESULTS: The search identified 1,227 publications with a total of 4,735 LPR patients; of these studies, 53 met the inclusion criteria. Of these 53 studies, we identified 10 unvalidated and six validated ICFs. None of the validated ICFs included all the psychometric properties. The main identified deficiencies related to ICF psychometric validation included variable construct validity, disparate and uncertain reliabilities, and a lack of interpretability. The lack of consideration of certain LPR laryngeal and extralaryngeal signs is the main weakness of ICFs, biasing content, and construct validities. CONCLUSION: The low specificity of LPR signs, the lack of consideration of many findings, and the absence of a gold standard for diagnosis constitute barriers to the further validation of these ICFs. Additional studies are needed to develop complete and reliable ICFs. Laryngoscope, 129:720-736, 2019.
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Anaïs Rameau; Lisa G De Marrez; Gautier Le Bosse; Karina Negro; Andra Sebestyen; Robin Baudouin; Sven Saussez; Stéphane Hans Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Philip O Katz; Kerry B Dunbar; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katarina B Greer; Rena Yadlapati; Stuart Jon Spechler Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Sven Saussez; Vinciane Muls; Maria R Barillari; Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba; Stéphane Hans; Petros D Karkos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jérôme R Lechien; Luigi A Vaira; Serge D Le Bon; Roxane Geerts; Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo; Sven Saussez Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-10-01