反流疾病问卷评分和使用:一项范围综述

Alexander T. Reddy, S. Posner, Matthew Harbrecht, Nicholas Koutlas, Jonathan Reichstein, Sarah Cantrell, D. Leiman
{"title":"反流疾病问卷评分和使用:一项范围综述","authors":"Alexander T. Reddy, S. Posner, Matthew Harbrecht, Nicholas Koutlas, Jonathan Reichstein, Sarah Cantrell, D. Leiman","doi":"10.1177/26345161231198622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The RDQ was developed to assist in diagnosing GERD, but is now widely used in multiple contexts and validated in several languages. However, there is no standard RDQ scoring rubric, making comparisons between its uses challenging. Therefore, we performed a scoping review to explore the current applications and scoring cutoffs of the RDQ. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science electronic databases were systematically searched from January 2001 to January 2021 by a medical librarian using controlled vocabulary terms and keywords to identify experimental and observational study designs. The search strategy yielded 5707 studies and 116 met inclusion criteria yielding a total patient population of 115 064. Studies utilized the RDQ to establish a GERD diagnosis (n = 52, 45%), report the prevalence of GERD symptoms within a specific population (n = 21, 18%), and assess the effect of an intervention on symptoms (n = 43, 37%). There was variability between the scoring threshold used for diagnosing GERD, with total GERD domain score ≥12 being the most commonly used (n = 16, 14%). The RDQ was designed as an aid for diagnosing GERD, but scoring methods and thresholds vary and the RDQ now is used to describe the prevalence of GERD symptoms and to assess symptom response to intervention. Based on the current review, the use of RDQ appears best suited for comparing diagnostic or treatment cohorts in which symptoms are evaluated. Interpretation of RDQ findings outside of a study-specific context is limited without accepted scoring standards.","PeriodicalId":73049,"journal":{"name":"Foregut (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflux Disease Questionnaire Scoring and Utilization: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Alexander T. Reddy, S. Posner, Matthew Harbrecht, Nicholas Koutlas, Jonathan Reichstein, Sarah Cantrell, D. Leiman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26345161231198622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The RDQ was developed to assist in diagnosing GERD, but is now widely used in multiple contexts and validated in several languages. However, there is no standard RDQ scoring rubric, making comparisons between its uses challenging. Therefore, we performed a scoping review to explore the current applications and scoring cutoffs of the RDQ. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science electronic databases were systematically searched from January 2001 to January 2021 by a medical librarian using controlled vocabulary terms and keywords to identify experimental and observational study designs. The search strategy yielded 5707 studies and 116 met inclusion criteria yielding a total patient population of 115 064. Studies utilized the RDQ to establish a GERD diagnosis (n = 52, 45%), report the prevalence of GERD symptoms within a specific population (n = 21, 18%), and assess the effect of an intervention on symptoms (n = 43, 37%). There was variability between the scoring threshold used for diagnosing GERD, with total GERD domain score ≥12 being the most commonly used (n = 16, 14%). The RDQ was designed as an aid for diagnosing GERD, but scoring methods and thresholds vary and the RDQ now is used to describe the prevalence of GERD symptoms and to assess symptom response to intervention. Based on the current review, the use of RDQ appears best suited for comparing diagnostic or treatment cohorts in which symptoms are evaluated. Interpretation of RDQ findings outside of a study-specific context is limited without accepted scoring standards.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foregut (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foregut (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26345161231198622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foregut (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26345161231198622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

RDQ的开发是为了帮助诊断胃食管反流,但现在被广泛应用于多种环境,并在几种语言中得到验证。然而,没有标准的RDQ评分标准,这使得在其使用之间进行比较具有挑战性。因此,我们进行了范围审查,以探索RDQ的当前应用程序和评分截止点。医学图书管理员从2001年1月至2021年1月系统地检索了MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库和Web of Science电子数据库,使用对照词汇术语和关键词来确定实验和观察性研究设计。检索策略产生5707项研究,116项符合纳入标准,总患者人数为115064人。研究利用RDQ建立了GERD诊断(n = 52,45%),报告了特定人群中GERD症状的患病率(n = 21,18%),并评估了干预对症状的影响(n = 43,37%)。用于诊断GERD的评分阈值之间存在差异,GERD域总分≥12是最常用的(n = 16,14%)。RDQ的设计是为了帮助诊断胃食管反流,但评分方法和阈值各不相同,RDQ现在用于描述胃食管反流症状的患病率和评估症状对干预的反应。根据目前的综述,RDQ的使用似乎最适合于比较诊断或治疗队列,在这些队列中评估症状。在没有公认的评分标准的情况下,对特定研究背景之外的RDQ结果的解释是有限的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reflux Disease Questionnaire Scoring and Utilization: A Scoping Review
The RDQ was developed to assist in diagnosing GERD, but is now widely used in multiple contexts and validated in several languages. However, there is no standard RDQ scoring rubric, making comparisons between its uses challenging. Therefore, we performed a scoping review to explore the current applications and scoring cutoffs of the RDQ. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science electronic databases were systematically searched from January 2001 to January 2021 by a medical librarian using controlled vocabulary terms and keywords to identify experimental and observational study designs. The search strategy yielded 5707 studies and 116 met inclusion criteria yielding a total patient population of 115 064. Studies utilized the RDQ to establish a GERD diagnosis (n = 52, 45%), report the prevalence of GERD symptoms within a specific population (n = 21, 18%), and assess the effect of an intervention on symptoms (n = 43, 37%). There was variability between the scoring threshold used for diagnosing GERD, with total GERD domain score ≥12 being the most commonly used (n = 16, 14%). The RDQ was designed as an aid for diagnosing GERD, but scoring methods and thresholds vary and the RDQ now is used to describe the prevalence of GERD symptoms and to assess symptom response to intervention. Based on the current review, the use of RDQ appears best suited for comparing diagnostic or treatment cohorts in which symptoms are evaluated. Interpretation of RDQ findings outside of a study-specific context is limited without accepted scoring standards.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Image Enhanced Endoscopy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Empiric Esophageal Dilation for the Treatment of Non-Obstructive Dysphagia Presidential Address 2023: “Just by Showing Up” Invited Commentary: Reflux Disease Questionnaire Scoring and Utilization: A Scoping Review Gastric Electrical Stimulation is an Effective Treatment Modality for Symptoms of GERD in Patients With Gastroparesis and VACTERL Association
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1