Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Diagnostic Value of the PeptestTM in Detecting Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

K. Zeleník, V. Hránková, A. Vrtková, L. Staníková, P. Komínek, M. Formánek

. 2021 ; 10 (13) : . [pub] 20210705

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21024435

Grantová podpora
MH CZ - DRO - FNOs/2018 Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky

BACKGROUND: The PeptestTM is a non-invasive diagnostic test for measuring the pepsin concentration in saliva, which is thought to correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the Peptest in detecting LPR based on 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring using several hypopharyngeal reflux episodes as criterion for LPR. METHODS: Patients with suspected LPR were examined with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), fasting Peptest, and MII-pH monitoring. We calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Peptest, RSI, and RFS based on the threshold of one and six hypopharyngeal reflux episodes. RESULTS: Altogether, the data from 46 patients were analyzed. When one hypopharyngeal reflux episode was used as a diagnostic threshold for LPR, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: 35%, 33%, 100%, 100%, and 3%, for the Peptest; 39%, 40%, 0%, 95%, and 0%, for the RSI; and 57%, 58%, 0%, 96%, and 0%, for the RFS. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Peptest for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were 46%, 27%, 63%, 40.0%, and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A positive Peptest is highly supportive of a pathological LPR diagnosis. However, a negative test could not exclude LPR.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21024435
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20211013133931.0
007      
ta
008      
211006s2021 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3390/jcm10132996 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34279479
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Zeleník, Karol $u Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Ostrava, 708 52 Ostrava, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Diagnostic Value of the PeptestTM in Detecting Laryngopharyngeal Reflux / $c K. Zeleník, V. Hránková, A. Vrtková, L. Staníková, P. Komínek, M. Formánek
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The PeptestTM is a non-invasive diagnostic test for measuring the pepsin concentration in saliva, which is thought to correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the Peptest in detecting LPR based on 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring using several hypopharyngeal reflux episodes as criterion for LPR. METHODS: Patients with suspected LPR were examined with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), fasting Peptest, and MII-pH monitoring. We calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Peptest, RSI, and RFS based on the threshold of one and six hypopharyngeal reflux episodes. RESULTS: Altogether, the data from 46 patients were analyzed. When one hypopharyngeal reflux episode was used as a diagnostic threshold for LPR, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: 35%, 33%, 100%, 100%, and 3%, for the Peptest; 39%, 40%, 0%, 95%, and 0%, for the RSI; and 57%, 58%, 0%, 96%, and 0%, for the RFS. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Peptest for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were 46%, 27%, 63%, 40.0%, and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A positive Peptest is highly supportive of a pathological LPR diagnosis. However, a negative test could not exclude LPR.
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Hránková, Viktória $u Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Ostrava, 708 52 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vrtková, Adéla $u Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, 708 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Staníková, Lucia $u Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Ostrava, 708 52 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Komínek, Pavel $u Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Ostrava, 708 52 Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Formánek, Martin $u Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Ostrava, 708 52 Ostrava, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00195462 $t Journal of clinical medicine $x 2077-0383 $g Roč. 10, č. 13 (2021)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34279479 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20211006 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20211013133928 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ind $b bmc $g 1708318 $s 1144932
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 10 $c 13 $e 20210705 $i 2077-0383 $m Journal of clinical medicine $n J Clin Med $x MED00195462
GRA    __
$a MH CZ - DRO - FNOs/2018 $p Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211006

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...