Open AccessPatient‐Reported Outcome Measures Related to Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
Author(s) -
Francis David O.,
Patel Dhyanesh A.,
Sharda Rohit,
Hovis Kristen,
Sathe Nila,
Penson David F.,
Feurer Irene D.,
McPheeters Melissa L.,
Vaezi Michael F.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.232
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1097-6817
pISSN - 0194-5998
DOI - 10.1177/0194599816664330
Subject(s) - medicine , laryngopharyngeal reflux , checklist , medline , patient reported outcome , cinahl , psychosocial , content validity , physical therapy , psychometrics , quality of life (healthcare) , clinical psychology , disease , psychology , pathology , psychiatry , nursing , reflux , political science , psychological intervention , law , cognitive psychology
Objectives Patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measures are often used to diagnose laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and monitor treatment outcomes in clinical and research settings. The present systematic review was designed to identify currently available LPR‐related PRO measures and to evaluate each measure’s instrument development, validation, and applicability. Data Sources MEDLINE via PubMed interface, CINAHL, and Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched with relevant vocabulary and key terms related to PRO measures and LPR. Review Methods Three investigators independently performed abstract review and full text review, applying a previously developed checklist to critically assess measurement properties of each study meeting inclusion criteria. Results Of 4947 studies reviewed, 7 LPR‐related PRO measures (publication years, 1991‐2010) met criteria for extraction and analysis. Two focused on globus and throat symptoms. Remaining measures were designed to assess LPR symptoms and monitor treatment outcomes in patients. None met all checklist criteria. Only 2 of 7 used patient input to devise item content, and 2 of 7 assessed responsiveness to change. Thematic deficiencies in current LPR‐related measures are inadequately demonstrated: content validity, construct validity, plan for interpretation, and literacy level assessment. Conclusion Laryngopharyngeal reflux is often diagnosed according to symptoms. Currently available LPR‐related PRO measures used to symptomatically identify suspected LPR patients have disparate developmental rigor and important methodological deficiencies. Care should be exercised to understand the measurement characteristics and contextual relevance before applying these PRO measures for clinical, research, or quality initiatives.