Translation and Validation of the Reflux Symptom Index to Spanish

Calvo‐Henríquez, Christian; Ruano-Raviña, Alberto; Vaamonde, Pedro; Lattomus, Kaelon; Sebio, Alicia; Fernández-Rodríguez, Raquel; Martín-Martín, Carlos

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.04.019

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The concurrent internal consistency reliability and test‐retest reliability of the RSS were 0.97 and 0.92, respectively, indicating excellent reliability of RSS. These results are competitive with those described for the current validated PRO questionnaires (see Supporting Information, Appendix 1, in the online version of this article) . The internal consistency of different versions of the RSI, LPR–Health‐Related Quality of Life (LPR‐HRQoL), and Pharyngeal Reflux Symptom Questionnaire (PRSQ) ranged from 0.72 to 0.99.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…These results are competitive with those described for the current validated PRO questionnaires (see Supporting Information, Appendix 1, in the online version of this article). [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] The internal consistency of different versions of the RSI, 29,[33][34][35] LPR-Health-Related Quality of Life (LPR-HRQoL), 28 and Pharyngeal Reflux Symptom Questionnaire (PRSQ) 31 ranged from 0.72 to 0.99. Our results of test-retest reliability were slightly higher than those reported for the RSI, LPR-HRQoL, and Supraesophageal Reflux Questionnaire (SERQ), suggesting high reproducibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom score

Lechien¹,

Bobin²,

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis To develop and validate the Reflux Symptom Score (RSS), a self‐administered patient‐reported outcome questionnaire for patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Study Design Prospective controlled study. Methods A total of 113 patients with LPR were enrolled and treated with diet and 3 months of pantoprazole, alginate, and/or magaldrate depending on the LPR characteristics (acid, nonacid, or mixed). Eighty asymptomatic individuals completed the study. Patients and controls completed the RSS twice within a 7‐day period to assess test‐retest reliability. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's α for the RSS items in patients and controls. Validity was assessed by comparing the baseline RSS with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Seventy‐seven patients completed the RSS at baseline and after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment to assess responsiveness to change. The RSS cutoff for determining the presence and absence of LPR was examined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results Test‐retest reliability (rs = 0.921) and internal consistency reliability (α = 0.969) were high. RSS exhibited high external validity indicated by a significant correlation with the RSI (rs = 0.831). Internal validity was excellent based on the higher RSS in patients compared with controls (P = .001). RSS, RSI, and VHI scores significantly improved from pre‐ to posttreatment, indicating a high responsiveness to change. RSS >13 can be considered suggestive of LPR‐related symptoms. RSS was not influenced by the occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, LPR subtypes, or patient characteristics. Conclusions RSS is a self‐administered patient‐reported outcome questionnaire that demonstrates high reliability and excellent criterion‐based validity. RSS can be used in diagnosing and monitoring LPR disease. Level of Evidence 3b Laryngoscope, 130:E98–E107, 2020

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom score

Lechien¹,

Bobin²,

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…40,45,52,[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] Among these, the RSI 60 and RFS 45 are the most popular clinical LPR tools, and the RSI has been adapted and validated in many languages. 10,[71][72][73][74][75][76] Due to the popularity of the RSI and RFS, the 11 symptoms and the 8 findings described in them are the most frequently assessed clinical therapeutic outcomes. 3 However, these tools have many weaknesses.…”

Section: Clinical Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and Management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: State of the Art Review

Lechien¹,

Akst

Hamdan

et al. 2019

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

272

401

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To review the current literature about the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Data Sources PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature on LPR epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment was conducted. Using the PRISMA statement, 3 authors selected relevant publications to provide a critical analysis of the literature. Conclusions The important heterogeneity across studies in LPR diagnosis continues to make it difficult to summarize a single body of thought. Controversies persist concerning epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. No recent epidemiologic study exists regarding prevalence and incidence with the use of objective diagnostic tools. There is no survey that evaluates the prevalence of symptoms and signs on a large number of patients with confirmed LPR. Regarding diagnosis, an increasing number of authors used multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH monitoring, although there is no consensus regarding standardization of the diagnostic criteria. The efficiency of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy remains poorly demonstrated and misevaluated by incomplete clinical tools that do not take into consideration many symptoms and extralaryngeal findings. Despite the recent advances in knowledge about nonacid LPR, treatment protocols based on PPIs do not seem to have evolved. Implications for Practice The development of multichannel intraluminal impedance–pH monitoring and pepsin and bile salt detection should be considered for the establishment of a multiparameter diagnostic approach. LPR treatment should evolve to a more personalized regimen, including diet, PPIs, alginate, and magaldrate according to individual patient characteristics. Multicenter international studies with a standardized protocol could improve scientific knowledge about LPR.

show abstract

“…The reliability of 24-h dual-probe pH monitoring is debatable because it cannot be performed in all LPR patients due to their invasiveness, lower sensitivity, and high cost [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dietary risk factors and therapy outcomes of swallowing-related problems in laryngopharyngeal reflux: patients’ perspectives

Mahmoud

Atta

El-Hamouly

et al. 2021

Egypt J Otolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This was a prospective cohort that included 60 gastro-esophageal reflux disorder patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux-related symptoms (e.g., sore throat, throat clearing, globus sensation, cough, dysphonia, and dysphagia). The diagnosis was confirmed using history taking, clinical laryngoscopic examination, and upper endoscopy guided by the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). Patients were treated with proton pump inhibitors and prokinetics for 12 weeks. The aim of the current study was to explore the dietary risk factors in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients and to assess the response to therapy on swallowing-related problems by comparing the baseline pre-treatment and post-treatment values of RSI and Dysphagia Handicap index (DHI). Results Analysis of data regarding the role of diet as a risk factor for reflux revealed that 33 patients (55%) are eating meat, 56 patients (93.3%) eating fat, 45 patients (75%) eating sweet, 55 patients (91.7%) eating spicy food, 52 patients (96.7%) eating fried food, 34 patients (56.7%) drinking tea, 51 patients (85%) eating big meals, 21 patients (35%) drinking fruit juices, 54 patients (90%) eating sour foods, 51 patients (85%) eating citrus fruits, and 22 patients (36.7%) smokers. There was a statistically significant decrease in Reflux Symptom Index scores and an increase of Dysphagia Handicap Index scores after 12 weeks on proton pump inhibitors and prokinetics. Conclusion Different dietary factors were present in LPR patients. A short period of empiric anti-reflux treatment has a significant improving effect on Reflux Symptom Index and Dysphagia Handicap Index scores from baseline to 12 weeks post-treatment. Further research is needed to investigate longer times of treatment for the complete resolution of symptoms.

show abstract

Translation and Validation of the Reflux Symptom Index to Spanish

Cited by 16 publications

References 29 publications

Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom score

Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom score

Evaluation and Management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: State of the Art Review

Dietary risk factors and therapy outcomes of swallowing-related problems in laryngopharyngeal reflux: patients’ perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About