Evidence Hub

Instruments evaluating the clinical findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux: A systematic review

Jerome Rene Lechien, Antonio Schindler, Lisa G. De Marrez, Abdul‐Latif Hamdan, Petros D. Karkos, Bernard Georges Harmegnies, Maria Rosaria Barillari, Camille Finck et al.

The Laryngoscope, 2018

4,735 participants · 68 citations

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,735 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free